Open letter to Christians

[orangebox21]

The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by about 40 authors, in three different languages, on three different continents, and over approximately 1,600 years.

Then the Bible, by definition, does not exist.  The books that were written by the authors you are presumably referring to no longer physically exist, nor are there accurate replicas.

So you concede the argument then?  If something doesn't exist then it can't have contradictions.  Is this the kind of foolishness you would like us to converse in?

1 Chronicles 3:15

If you are citing the point in question as an example for your case, then I can only take this as an indication that you are no longer interested in serious debate - presuming, of course, that you ever were.

 
Back to your cheap debate tactics again?  Do you find it necessary to undermine a person's intellectual integrity with speculation?  You asked for a Biblical example of Jewish genealogy that is not chronological.  I provided one.  You reject it.

The point here is simple, your criteria puts you in an illogical position.  1 Chronicles 3:15 gives a list of sons.  2 Kings gives a chronology of those sons.  The list in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is in a different order than the chronological order of the sons (from 2 Kings).  Let's say I provided you a list of sons in one passage of scripture and a chronology of those sons in another passage of scripture.  Let's say the order of the chronology doesn't match the list.  Why wouldn't you claim another contradiction?  This would be logically consistent with your position.  Why would two 'contradictions' change your mind to think that neither one is a contradiction?  The criteria that you are asking for is exactly the same criteria I am providing to assert that 1 Chronicles 3:15 is not a chronological list.  If you don't accept my reasoning in our current example you cannot remain logically consistent to accept the second example as proof that either list isn't in chronological order.  This is why the criteria should be an examination of your presupposition, namely that a list of genealogy is necessarily chronological.      

The list is one of heredity (No, I didn't abandon my first proposal, I stopped discussing it because you were using it to draw an illogical conclusion, and given the subjective nature of the claim I have now chosen to offer a different one).

You didn't abandon your proposal, but you stopped discussing it and have chosen to offer a different one?  It seems your semantic gymnastics are lacking on this one, chap.

And again the condescension intended to taint my intellectual integrity.  The reason I did this is clearly stated in post #48.  I'll copy it here.

---

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.

---

 
Furthermore it is entirely reasonable within an exchange of ideas to abandon a weaker line of reasoning to a stronger one so long as the argument doesn't change.

Also, what is the alternative that you offered?  I did not see it.

The list is one of heredity.

Prove that the two propositional statements "the third Zedekiah and the fourth Shallum" and "Shallum is older than Zedekiah" is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

We represent their ages with numbers.  Let n represent Zedekiah's age and m represent Shallum's age.  According to 1 Chronicles 3:15, n>m.

No, you've begged the question.  You've assumed the list is given chronologically in order to prove the list is chronological in order to prove a violation of the law of non-contradiction.  You have yet to prove that the propositional statement:  "the third Zedekiah, and the fourth Shallum" is synonymous with "Shallum is younger than Zedekiah."  It is factual that the brother's are listed.  The criteria by which the brother's are listed isn't explicit.