Open letter to Christians

[orangebox21]

From post #53

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."

---

Summarized in post #55

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?)

#1
The canon of God.

---

#2
Has been addressed and accepted by comparing the genealogical lists in 1 Chronicles 2:1-2 and Genesis 35:22-25, and the chronology in Genesis 29:31-30:24/35:16-19.

---

#3
The list in 1 Chronicles is one of heredity.

---

For the sake of those following the argument I find it necessary to reiterate that while I'm happy to answer question three it has no logical relevance to the initial claim.  It is irrefutable that the list in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is one of heredity.  The list is of the sons of Josiah.  Does this prove that the list is or is not in chronological order?  No, because these two claims are not mutually exclusive.  It could be that the list is both one of heredity and in chronological order.  See post #48 for further clarification.

---

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.

And sons of Josiah: the first-born Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.

Notice the word "first-born"? That's in the Young's Literal Translation, and all other English translations I've checked have the term "first-born" as well.

So this means the list is meant to be chronological in order by age.

No, that only means that Johanan is the "first-born."  And we know that "first-born" can either be first-born chronologically, or it can be a term referring to a title of preeminence (birth right), or both.  Either way, the term "first-born" does not have a necessary bearing on the rest of the list.