Open letter to Christians

[Nihilist Virus]

@Nihilist virus

What evidence do you need?

I have provided scholarly sources showing that genealogies are not necessarily chronological and should not be understood as such.  This contradicts the fundamental premise to your argument and renders it false.  You not only deny the validity of these sources but you deny that I have even provided them at all.

Specifically, what evidence do you need to support the claim that genealogies are not necessarily chronological?  Three, four scholarly sources?  What if I provided four Jewish rabbis who confirm this.  Or is four not enough?  Six then?  Please lay out specifically and concisely exactly what 'proof' you require.

Your scholars proposed that the kings were listed in order of importance. This was shot down, so I reject it. Why are you now so incredulous? Furthermore, your appeal to scholars is baffling considering that you believe the "Bible" (which you did not define) is the inerrant word of God. That would certainly be a minority view among Bible scholars, even if we only talk about those that are Christians. If I find three, four, maybe six Bible scholars who are Christian and also believe that the Bible contradicts itself, shouldn't that settle the matter? Something tells me that it suddenly won't matter to you that these people are scholars. Even more ludicrous is your hint of bringing in rabbis. Please do, and tell me how many of them believe Jesus fulfilled the duties of the messiah.

So to address what you have dodged, we have:

1. Definition of "Bible"
2. One example of a genealogy given out of chronological order
3. Explanation of the order of the kings given in 1 Chronicles 3:15 (you abandoned your first proposal on this, right?)

Please lay out specifically and concisely exactly what 'proof' you require.

I already laid out that list in the previous post and I repeated it above for your convenience. It hasn't changed. I don't accept your cherry picking from scholars whose views you largely disagree with and whose quotes may very well have been taken out of context to begin with.