Open letter to Christians

[Nihilist Virus]

Ultimately this boils down to a few things.  First, the definition of 'Bible' is completely irrelevant to the argument as to whether 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.

Wrong.

I showed you back in post #59 that the ISV says,

Josiah’s descendants included Johanan his firstborn, his second born Jehoiakim, his third born Zedekiah, and his fourth born Shallum.

You are either unable or unwilling to provide a coherent definition of what a Bible is, so it is entirely unreasonable to claim that the ISV is not a Bible.  Also, while you suggest that the reading of 1 Chronicles 3:15 does not necessarily list the sons in order of birth, my position that the list is chronological certainly cannot be eliminated.  Now I have produced a version of the verse which both affirms my position and is consistent with the other versions. Therefore it follows that Zedekiah son of Josiah is older than Shallum, which is shown to be a contradiction later in the text.

---

---

It only has bearing upon the truth value of the two propositions, but for the sake of argument we've assumed these propositional statements are true.  Secondly I have provided you with an example of a genealogy given out of chronological order.  You should therefore either concede that the list in 1 Chronicles is not in chronological order, or interact with the evidence given.

Your example of genealogy not always being chronological was necessary but not sufficient. Your example does not prove 1 Chronicles 3:15 is not chronological; your example only shows it is possible and precedented for it to not be chronological.

Lastly, question three is a continuation of argumentation of both a straw man and irrelevant thesis as pointed out in the last two paragraphs I wrote in post #48.  While it may be fun to speculate on the order of the list, or whether the list has a categorical order at all, this line of argumentation is irrelevant to the original thesis.        

Questions are not arguments so they cannot be strawmen.  I don't know what you are talking about.

I have in the past had no problem answering these questions for the sake of conversation.  I did so in the good faith that you can recognize that they are irrelevant to, and therefore illogical for, the sake of our argument.  At this point, within this thread, if you continue to conflate our 'conversation' with our 'argumentation', then I will have to answer only the questions for the sake of argumentation.
Otherwise you are asking me to provide illogical arguments to support my position.  Can we agree that asking me to provide illogic to support my position is foolishness?

At this point I agree it is irrelevant because I have shown that the sons are listed in chronological order.  Now we can either both agree that the Bible has contradictions, in which case you will backpedal and say without substantiation that it's scribal error (scribal errors are OK because why?), or else you can defend this passage by defining the Bible in such a way that the ISV is excluded.  If you throw a trivial definition at me, such as defining the Bible by listing acceptable versions while omitting the ISV, then we'll have a go with your "illogic."