Open letter to Christians

[Nihilist Virus]

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?

As I've stated before, these claims ["they are listed in order of birth" and "they are listed in order of importance"] are not mutually exclusive claims.  Therefore, proving the second one false does not prove the first one true.  

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,

Agreed

so it would be tacitly assumed that they are being listed in order of importance.

As previously stated, one way in which a genealogy can be listed is in order of importance.  In this specific instance it appears to be the case.

Why, then, in this rare occasion are we given clarification of who was second, third, and fourth? Is it being redundant?

I don't know.

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?

No, as I've claimed in a previous post (#48), the issue isn't one of understanding the Hebrew language, but rather the Jewish culture of the time.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Isaac was not Abraham's first born son.  Yet Isaac had the birth right.

 Yes, this was addressed and explained in post #35 .  While a bit off topic, I wanted to included this information in the discussion to avoid a potential future objection.  

---

The word "first born" can both refer to both the first physically born or the one containing the birth right.  In the latter case the 'first-born' is defined as a title of preeminence.  The meaning of first born is illustrated in the septuagint.  If we look at 1 Chronicles 3:15 in the septuagint we find that the word for first-born is the Greek word prototokos.  As you can see from definition it can both mean first born physically or it can mean a person of pre-eminence.  We find the same word being spoken of Christ in Colossians 1:15.  The definition of 'first born' would be determined by the immediate context and any parallel passages or other historical documentation.

---

 

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.

Listing the genealogy in the order of the King's rule would be consistent with the Jewish treatment of genealogies.  But not required.

---

If you want some further reading on genealogies and their significance you can read about them here.  Or perhaps you could contact a Jewish Genealogical Society and ask them some questions.

---

The most relevant information is found in the first link in the 'principles of interpretation' section where it states, "In the present state of our knowledge, and of the text, and also considering the large and vague chronological methods of the Hebrews, the genealogies can give us comparatively little chronological assistance. The uncertainty as to the actual length of a generation, and the custom of frequently omitting links in the descent, increases the difficulty; so that unless they possess special marks of completeness, or have outstanding historical relationships which determine or corroborate them, or several parallel genealogies confirm each other, they must be used with great caution. Their interest is historical, biographical, successional or hereditary, rather than chronological.

You can also read from the Pulpit commentary when it states:  "Verse 15. - The first thing to be observed in this verse is that, though it lays stress on the mention of the name of Josiah's firstborn of four sons as Johanan, this is the only mention of him. Some, however, have taken the Jehoahaz of 2 Kings 23:30 for him. Next, that Jehoiakim was not the original name of the next brother, but a name slightly altered by Pharaoh-Necho from Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34). If the dates of 2 Kings 23:31, 34, 36, be correct, there is no doubt that, though Jehoiakim, i.e. Eliakim, reigned after Jehoahaz, yet he was the elder, and is in his right place in the present passage. Next, that Shallum (Jeremiah 20:11) is another name of the Jehoa-haz of 2 Kings 23:30, 31, 34, and several other places. It is possible that he finds the last place amid the four brothers of this verse because of his probable usurpation of the throne, in violation of the right of his elder brother, Jehoiakim, and the early fall he met with in consequence. Lastly, that the fourth brother, Zedekiah, whose name (2 Kings 24:17) was originally Mattha-niah, was put on the throne by the King of Babylon, and reigned eleven years in Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:18) after that his nephew Jehoiachin (who could have no son old enough to succeed) was (2 Kings 24:12, 15, 17) carried captive to Babylon."

---

---

The bottom line is this.  It is factual that when documenting genealogies the Jews were very loose.  So apart from any corroboration we can't know for certain in what order the children were listed in 1 Chronicles 3:15.  However, given the corroborating information found in the book of Kings we can ascertain the relative ages and chronology of succession of these children.  From that information we can determine that the list in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is not in chronological order.  So where scholars use what is clear information (2 Kings) to understand what is known to be unclear information (order of the list in 1 Chron. 3:15), you would seek to do the opposite and claim a contradiction.  This contradiction is a fabrication due to ignorance of the historical context in which the text was written.

As I've stated before, these claims ["they are listed in order of birth" and "they are listed in order of importance"] are not mutually exclusive claims.  Therefore, proving the second one false does not prove the first one true.  

Agreed.

As previously stated, one way in which a genealogy can be listed is in order of importance.  In this specific instance it appears to be the case.

Then you are saying that you have absolutely no factual basis for your claims here, and I am to understand that such claims are made completely ad hoc as a proposed, but unsupported, refutation of a contradiction.

So now I'd like to point out two things:

First, I don't think you know what you're talking about when you say that the Jews were loose with their genealogy.  It may be true that Adam begat David, who begat Jesus, but that does not mean they are being loose with genealogy.  They are merely applying a word which does not exist in common English.  I do not know of a single instance in which offspring are listed out of chronological order.  If you can produce one such instance, I will concede this Zedekiah contradiction to you, provided that you can give me a satisfactory answer to my second point below.

Second, when you were going full metal Slick Willy on me, asking me to define "contradiction," you would have done better to ask me to define "Bible."  What do I mean, or what do you mean, when we say the word "Bible"?  Strictly speaking, the Bible is lost to time.  Not only are the original manuscripts gone, but the present-day copies are also imperfect.  We simply do not have the original word of God, whether in the physical sense or in the sense of pure information.  So when I cite 1 Chronicles 3:15 to you, I was submitting the King James version (if memory serves me).  You used your modern English skills to lawyer the hell out of that old English verse to twist it into saying what you wanted to say, which, incidentally, seems to be an assertion that you have since conceded with the caveat that you also do not accept my plain reading of the same verse.  But now if I call your attention to the NIRV, the verse says this:

Josiah’s first son was Johanan.
Jehoiakim was his second son.
Zedekiah was the third son.
Shallum was the fourth son.

Now, we've already eliminated the possibility that this is referring to the sons in order of importance.  You have eliminated the possibility that the plain reading of this is correct because the plain reading leads to a contradiction.  Please explain what the correct reading is, and also please answer my first point above so that the reasonable people among us may even consider the possibility of eliminating a plain reading as being correct.  Also, please define "Bible."

No, as I've claimed in a previous post (#48), the issue isn't one of understanding the Hebrew language, but rather the Jewish culture of the time.

Again, please provide one example of this from the Bible.

Yes, this was addressed and explained in post #35 .  While a bit off topic, I wanted to included this information in the discussion to avoid a potential future objection.  
The word "first born" can both refer to both the first physically born or the one containing the birth right.  In the latter case the 'first-born' is defined as a title of preeminence.  The meaning of first born is illustrated in the septuagint.  If we look at 1 Chronicles 3:15 in the septuagint we find that the word for first-born is the Greek word prototokos.  As you can see from definition it can both mean first born physically or it can mean a person of pre-eminence.  We find the same word being spoken of Christ in Colossians 1:15.  The definition of 'first born' would be determined by the immediate context and any parallel passages or other historical documentation.

Why are you citing a Greek definition?  The Old Testament was not written in that language.  If the Greek translation of the Old Testament employs a word that has multiple meanings in Greek, that says nothing about what was intended in the Hebrew.

Listing the genealogy in the order of the King's rule would be consistent with the Jewish treatment of genealogies.  But not required.

Again, please provide one example of this from the Bible.

If you want some further reading on genealogies and their significance you can read about them here.  Or perhaps you could contact a Jewish Genealogical Society and ask them some questions.

The most relevant information is found in the first link in the 'principles of interpretation' section where it states, "In the present state of our knowledge, and of the text, and also considering the large and vague chronological methods of the Hebrews, the genealogies can give us comparatively little chronological assistance. The uncertainty as to the actual length of a generation, and the custom of frequently omitting links in the descent, increases the difficulty; so that unless they possess special marks of completeness, or have outstanding historical relationships which determine or corroborate them, or several parallel genealogies confirm each other, they must be used with great caution. Their interest is historical, biographical, successional or hereditary, rather than chronological.

You can also read from the Pulpit commentary when it states:  "Verse 15. - The first thing to be observed in this verse is that, though it lays stress on the mention of the name of Josiah's firstborn of four sons as Johanan, this is the only mention of him. Some, however, have taken the Jehoahaz of 2 Kings 23:30 for him. Next, that Jehoiakim was not the original name of the next brother, but a name slightly altered by Pharaoh-Necho from Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34). If the dates of 2 Kings 23:31, 34, 36, be correct, there is no doubt that, though Jehoiakim, i.e. Eliakim, reigned after Jehoahaz, yet he was the elder, and is in his right place in the present passage. Next, that Shallum (Jeremiah 20:11) is another name of the Jehoa-haz of 2 Kings 23:30, 31, 34, and several other places. It is possible that he finds the last place amid the four brothers of this verse because of his probable usurpation of the throne, in violation of the right of his elder brother, Jehoiakim, and the early fall he met with in consequence. Lastly, that the fourth brother, Zedekiah, whose name (2 Kings 24:17) was originally Mattha-niah, was put on the throne by the King of Babylon, and reigned eleven years in Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:18) after that his nephew Jehoiachin (who could have no son old enough to succeed) was (2 Kings 24:12, 15, 17) carried captive to Babylon."

And again what you are giving me here is pure speculation based on nothing.  Your own wild speculation was already falsified.  The feats of gymnastics you're capable of are astounding, but you have done nothing to dissuade one from a plain reading of the text.

The bottom line is this.  It is factual that when documenting genealogies the Jews were very loose.

Once again, do you have a Biblical example?

So apart from any corroboration we can't know for certain in what order the children were listed in 1 Chronicles 3:15.  However, given the corroborating information found in the book of Kings we can ascertain the relative ages and chronology of succession of these children.  From that information we can determine that the list in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is not in chronological order.  So where scholars use what is clear information (2 Kings) to understand what is known to be unclear information (order of the list in 1 Chron. 3:15), you would seek to do the opposite and claim a contradiction.  This contradiction is a fabrication due to ignorance of the historical context in which the text was written.

You reject the proposal that the order is chronological for no reason other than your aversion to a contradiction in the Bible.  I have absolutely no doubt that you would give nowhere near this much leniency to the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and etc.  Your position is clearly biased and factually unfounded.  In fact, your position is nonexistent because you have not even given a proposal to explain the wording of 1 Chronicles 3:15.