(February 25, 2016 at 2:17 am)Irrational Wrote:(February 18, 2016 at 11:36 am)orangebox21 Wrote: 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.
Ok, have it your way, but this argument is problematic, as this implies anything goes and your position is right no matter what. That's why parsimony is such a good principle.
Don't let him fool you. The ISV says explicitly that the sons are listed in order, and orangebox21 has seemingly given up on the idea of defining what the Bible is after two subpar efforts. So if the ISV is indeed really a Bible, and if it says that the sons are given in order of birth, then the contradiction I proposed stands.
Jesus is like Pinocchio. He's the bastard son of a carpenter. And a liar. And he wishes he was real.
