Open letter to Christians

[Nihilist Virus]

...

You did agree with my definition because you used it to claim the Bible doesn't exist (#57).  It was only after I pointed out the implication of your claim (a necessary concession of the argument) do you now reject my definition.  

If I agreed with your definition then I would believe the Bible does not exist.  To say that such a proposition is moronic would be quite the understatement.  I was only following the line of reasoning initiated by your terrible definition.

If you are going to lie about me I am not going to be able to respond to you.  

What part of that paragraph was a lie?  As you defined it, a Bible could be a collection of European poetry drafted over 1600 years together with unicycle assembly instructions.

I wouldn't be playing this game with you if you hadn't been trolling me about the definition of "contradiction" in the first place.  You are being HIGHLY litigious with me, and yet you clearly cannot withstand even half the same scrutiny reflected back at you.  This does not speak well about you.

To be very clear you didn't ask me to provide a definition of the Bible that you agree with, just to provide a definition.  You continue to move the goal posts.  First it was:  define the word Bible.  Now it's define the word Bible in a manner I agree with.

OK, so if you told me a Bible is a waffle, what do you think I would've said?  I know you're extremely legalistic, but even you had to know I'm not talking about waffles.  So when I ask for a definition, I have a certain range of expected answers.  Your answer fell far, far outside that range.  You STILL haven't given a satisfactory definition, and instead you're just complaining about my behavior.


First it was:  provide a scriptural reference showing the Jews listed a genealogy non-chronologically.  Now it's provide two scriptural examples showing the Jews listed genealogy as such.  There is no satisfying an ever changing criteria.

You were asserting the point in question as an example for your case.  Do you think I'm retarded?  I would have to be if I was going to fall for that.  "Your Honor, the defendant is a murderer.  My proof: he committed the murder for which he is on trial."  See, I'm telling you that 1 Chronicles 3:15 lists the sons in chronological order.  You disagree.  So what you have to do is go find OTHER examples to support your case OR show me the Hebrew which says that they are not being listed in chronological order. You have done neither.

You ALSO said, and I quote, "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."  There are many problems with this.  Firstly, I don't have to refute that statement.  I need only show that 1 Chronicles 3:15 lists the sons in chronological order (which I DID show).  Even if the Jews very commonly listed sons out of order, the fact that they listed them in chronological order in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is sufficient to prove my case.  Also, if this practice is so common, why are you unable to find an example aside from the point in question?  Lastly, is this issue even a point in question anymore since I provided a translation that proves my case?



Would you like me to refine my definition of the term Bible?




It isn't wise to base a theological argument on a word found in a translation but not appearing in the original manuscript.  As you can see the word translated as firstborn does include the word born.  However, the word 'born' doesn't appear as a qualifier of any of the rest of the ordinal numbers  .  Given the context it is possible to translate the word 'second' as second born but it is not necessarily the case.  Given the clear chronology given in Kings and the Jews treatment of genealogy, the list in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is not chronological.

There are, according to us, at least two different ways to read 1 Chronicles 3:15, and this translation is consistent with one of them. You must now invoke the ancient Hebrew to debunk this translation.  You don't get to just disavow a particular version of the Bible for no reason other than your assertion that the Bible contains no contradictions.