Open letter to Christians

[orangebox21]

Least important was Shallum, because his rule was a result of usurping the throne and only lasted 3 months.

This is false. Read 2 Kings 23:29-33.  From this it appears Shallum was the legitimate successor, not a usurper, and was not a vassal king either.  This would make him a more important ruler than the vassal king, Zedekiah (how do you determine importance in this context?).  Even if Shallum was a usurper, being installed via shady Jewish politics would presumably make him more of a legitimate king than any vassal king. Vassal kings bow down and touch their head to the ground. How do you place 11 vassal years over Shallum's 3 months of sovereign reign? Can you show the ancient Jews were inclined to do this?

As I've stated before, these claims ["they are listed in order of birth" and "they are listed in order of importance"] are not mutually exclusive claims.  Therefore, proving the second one false does not prove the first one true.  

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 this is the case then it would already be understood that the sons listed after the first are not necessarily given in chronological order,

Agreed

so it would be tacitly assumed that they are being listed in order of importance.

As previously stated, one way in which a genealogy can be listed is in order of importance.  In this specific instance it appears to be the case.

Why, then, in this rare occasion are we given clarification of who was second, third, and fourth? Is it being redundant?

I don't know.

Also can you provide evidence of any of your assertions about the language and culture being described, or are you of the belief that I need to know Hebrew to claim there is a contradiction?

No, as I've claimed in a previous post (#48), the issue isn't one of understanding the Hebrew language, but rather the Jewish culture of the time.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Isaac was not Abraham's first born son.  Yet Isaac had the birth right.

 Yes, this was addressed and explained in post #35 .  While a bit off topic, I wanted to included this information in the discussion to avoid a potential future objection.  

---

The word "first born" can both refer to both the first physically born or the one containing the birth right.  In the latter case the 'first-born' is defined as a title of preeminence.  The meaning of first born is illustrated in the septuagint.  If we look at 1 Chronicles 3:15 in the septuagint we find that the word for first-born is the Greek word prototokos.  As you can see from definition it can both mean first born physically or it can mean a person of pre-eminence.  We find the same word being spoken of Christ in Colossians 1:15.  The definition of 'first born' would be determined by the immediate context and any parallel passages or other historical documentation.

---

 

So the father of the Jews already is an exception to your generality.  Also the Bible is pretty clear on the order of the patriarchs' births so it would be inconsistent to not give the order of birth of kings.  Evidence required for your claim.

Listing the genealogy in the order of the King's rule would be consistent with the Jewish treatment of genealogies.  But not required.

---

If you want some further reading on genealogies and their significance you can read about them here.  Or perhaps you could contact a Jewish Genealogical Society and ask them some questions.

---

The most relevant information is found in the first link in the 'principles of interpretation' section where it states, "In the present state of our knowledge, and of the text, and also considering the large and vague chronological methods of the Hebrews, the genealogies can give us comparatively little chronological assistance. The uncertainty as to the actual length of a generation, and the custom of frequently omitting links in the descent, increases the difficulty; so that unless they possess special marks of completeness, or have outstanding historical relationships which determine or corroborate them, or several parallel genealogies confirm each other, they must be used with great caution. Their interest is historical, biographical, successional or hereditary, rather than chronological.

You can also read from the Pulpit commentary when it states:  "Verse 15. - The first thing to be observed in this verse is that, though it lays stress on the mention of the name of Josiah's firstborn of four sons as Johanan, this is the only mention of him. Some, however, have taken the Jehoahaz of 2 Kings 23:30 for him. Next, that Jehoiakim was not the original name of the next brother, but a name slightly altered by Pharaoh-Necho from Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34). If the dates of 2 Kings 23:31, 34, 36, be correct, there is no doubt that, though Jehoiakim, i.e. Eliakim, reigned after Jehoahaz, yet he was the elder, and is in his right place in the present passage. Next, that Shallum (Jeremiah 20:11) is another name of the Jehoa-haz of 2 Kings 23:30, 31, 34, and several other places. It is possible that he finds the last place amid the four brothers of this verse because of his probable usurpation of the throne, in violation of the right of his elder brother, Jehoiakim, and the early fall he met with in consequence. Lastly, that the fourth brother, Zedekiah, whose name (2 Kings 24:17) was originally Mattha-niah, was put on the throne by the King of Babylon, and reigned eleven years in Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:18) after that his nephew Jehoiachin (who could have no son old enough to succeed) was (2 Kings 24:12, 15, 17) carried captive to Babylon."

---

---

The bottom line is this.  It is factual that when documenting genealogies the Jews were very loose.  So apart from any corroboration we can't know for certain in what order the children were listed in 1 Chronicles 3:15.  However, given the corroborating information found in the book of Kings we can ascertain the relative ages and chronology of succession of these children.  From that information we can determine that the list in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is not in chronological order.  So where scholars use what is clear information (2 Kings) to understand what is known to be unclear information (order of the list in 1 Chron. 3:15), you would seek to do the opposite and claim a contradiction.  This contradiction is a fabrication due to ignorance of the historical context in which the text was written.

[Nihilist Virus]

This is false. Read 2 Kings 23:29-33.  From this it appears Shallum was the legitimate successor, not a usurper, and was not a vassal king either.  This would make him a more important ruler than the vassal king, Zedekiah (how do you determine importance in this context?).  Even if Shallum was a usurper, being installed via shady Jewish politics would presumably make him more of a legitimate king than any vassal king. Vassal kings bow down and touch their head to the ground. How do you place 11 vassal years over Shallum's 3 months of sovereign reign? Can you show the ancient Jews were inclined to do this?

As I've stated before, these claims ["they are listed in order of birth" and "they are listed in order of importance"] are not mutually exclusive claims.  Therefore, proving the second one false does not prove the first one true.  

If this is the case then it would already be understood that the sons listed after the first are not necessarily given in chronological order,

Agreed

so it would be tacitly assumed that they are being listed in order of importance.

As previously stated, one way in which a genealogy can be listed is in order of importance.  In this specific instance it appears to be the case.

Why, then, in this rare occasion are we given clarification of who was second, third, and fourth? Is it being redundant?

I don't know.

Also can you provide evidence of any of your assertions about the language and culture being described, or are you of the belief that I need to know Hebrew to claim there is a contradiction?

No, as I've claimed in a previous post (#48), the issue isn't one of understanding the Hebrew language, but rather the Jewish culture of the time.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Isaac was not Abraham's first born son.  Yet Isaac had the birth right.

 Yes, this was addressed and explained in post #35 .  While a bit off topic, I wanted to included this information in the discussion to avoid a potential future objection.  

---

The word "first born" can both refer to both the first physically born or the one containing the birth right.  In the latter case the 'first-born' is defined as a title of preeminence.  The meaning of first born is illustrated in the septuagint.  If we look at 1 Chronicles 3:15 in the septuagint we find that the word for first-born is the Greek word prototokos.  As you can see from definition it can both mean first born physically or it can mean a person of pre-eminence.  We find the same word being spoken of Christ in Colossians 1:15.  The definition of 'first born' would be determined by the immediate context and any parallel passages or other historical documentation.

---

 

So the father of the Jews already is an exception to your generality.  Also the Bible is pretty clear on the order of the patriarchs' births so it would be inconsistent to not give the order of birth of kings.  Evidence required for your claim.

Listing the genealogy in the order of the King's rule would be consistent with the Jewish treatment of genealogies.  But not required.

---

If you want some further reading on genealogies and their significance you can read about them here.  Or perhaps you could contact a Jewish Genealogical Society and ask them some questions.

---

The most relevant information is found in the first link in the 'principles of interpretation' section where it states, "In the present state of our knowledge, and of the text, and also considering the large and vague chronological methods of the Hebrews, the genealogies can give us comparatively little chronological assistance. The uncertainty as to the actual length of a generation, and the custom of frequently omitting links in the descent, increases the difficulty; so that unless they possess special marks of completeness, or have outstanding historical relationships which determine or corroborate them, or several parallel genealogies confirm each other, they must be used with great caution. Their interest is historical, biographical, successional or hereditary, rather than chronological.

You can also read from the Pulpit commentary when it states:  "Verse 15. - The first thing to be observed in this verse is that, though it lays stress on the mention of the name of Josiah's firstborn of four sons as Johanan, this is the only mention of him. Some, however, have taken the Jehoahaz of 2 Kings 23:30 for him. Next, that Jehoiakim was not the original name of the next brother, but a name slightly altered by Pharaoh-Necho from Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34). If the dates of 2 Kings 23:31, 34, 36, be correct, there is no doubt that, though Jehoiakim, i.e. Eliakim, reigned after Jehoahaz, yet he was the elder, and is in his right place in the present passage. Next, that Shallum (Jeremiah 20:11) is another name of the Jehoa-haz of 2 Kings 23:30, 31, 34, and several other places. It is possible that he finds the last place amid the four brothers of this verse because of his probable usurpation of the throne, in violation of the right of his elder brother, Jehoiakim, and the early fall he met with in consequence. Lastly, that the fourth brother, Zedekiah, whose name (2 Kings 24:17) was originally Mattha-niah, was put on the throne by the King of Babylon, and reigned eleven years in Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:18) after that his nephew Jehoiachin (who could have no son old enough to succeed) was (2 Kings 24:12, 15, 17) carried captive to Babylon."

---

---

The bottom line is this.  It is factual that when documenting genealogies the Jews were very loose.  So apart from any corroboration we can't know for certain in what order the children were listed in 1 Chronicles 3:15.  However, given the corroborating information found in the book of Kings we can ascertain the relative ages and chronology of succession of these children.  From that information we can determine that the list in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is not in chronological order.  So where scholars use what is clear information (2 Kings) to understand what is known to be unclear information (order of the list in 1 Chron. 3:15), you would seek to do the opposite and claim a contradiction.  This contradiction is a fabrication due to ignorance of the historical context in which the text was written.

As I've stated before, these claims ["they are listed in order of birth" and "they are listed in order of importance"] are not mutually exclusive claims.  Therefore, proving the second one false does not prove the first one true.  

Agreed.

As previously stated, one way in which a genealogy can be listed is in order of importance.  In this specific instance it appears to be the case.

Then you are saying that you have absolutely no factual basis for your claims here, and I am to understand that such claims are made completely ad hoc as a proposed, but unsupported, refutation of a contradiction.

So now I'd like to point out two things:

First, I don't think you know what you're talking about when you say that the Jews were loose with their genealogy.  It may be true that Adam begat David, who begat Jesus, but that does not mean they are being loose with genealogy.  They are merely applying a word which does not exist in common English.  I do not know of a single instance in which offspring are listed out of chronological order.  If you can produce one such instance, I will concede this Zedekiah contradiction to you, provided that you can give me a satisfactory answer to my second point below.

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."

No, as I've claimed in a previous post (#48), the issue isn't one of understanding the Hebrew language, but rather the Jewish culture of the time.

Again, please provide one example of this from the Bible.

Yes, this was addressed and explained in post #35 .  While a bit off topic, I wanted to included this information in the discussion to avoid a potential future objection.  
The word "first born" can both refer to both the first physically born or the one containing the birth right.  In the latter case the 'first-born' is defined as a title of preeminence.  The meaning of first born is illustrated in the septuagint.  If we look at 1 Chronicles 3:15 in the septuagint we find that the word for first-born is the Greek word prototokos.  As you can see from definition it can both mean first born physically or it can mean a person of pre-eminence.  We find the same word being spoken of Christ in Colossians 1:15.  The definition of 'first born' would be determined by the immediate context and any parallel passages or other historical documentation.

Why are you citing a Greek definition?  The Old Testament was not written in that language.  If the Greek translation of the Old Testament employs a word that has multiple meanings in Greek, that says nothing about what was intended in the Hebrew.

Listing the genealogy in the order of the King's rule would be consistent with the Jewish treatment of genealogies.  But not required.

Again, please provide one example of this from the Bible.

If you want some further reading on genealogies and their significance you can read about them here.  Or perhaps you could contact a Jewish Genealogical Society and ask them some questions.

The most relevant information is found in the first link in the 'principles of interpretation' section where it states, "In the present state of our knowledge, and of the text, and also considering the large and vague chronological methods of the Hebrews, the genealogies can give us comparatively little chronological assistance. The uncertainty as to the actual length of a generation, and the custom of frequently omitting links in the descent, increases the difficulty; so that unless they possess special marks of completeness, or have outstanding historical relationships which determine or corroborate them, or several parallel genealogies confirm each other, they must be used with great caution. Their interest is historical, biographical, successional or hereditary, rather than chronological.

You can also read from the Pulpit commentary when it states:  "Verse 15. - The first thing to be observed in this verse is that, though it lays stress on the mention of the name of Josiah's firstborn of four sons as Johanan, this is the only mention of him. Some, however, have taken the Jehoahaz of 2 Kings 23:30 for him. Next, that Jehoiakim was not the original name of the next brother, but a name slightly altered by Pharaoh-Necho from Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34). If the dates of 2 Kings 23:31, 34, 36, be correct, there is no doubt that, though Jehoiakim, i.e. Eliakim, reigned after Jehoahaz, yet he was the elder, and is in his right place in the present passage. Next, that Shallum (Jeremiah 20:11) is another name of the Jehoa-haz of 2 Kings 23:30, 31, 34, and several other places. It is possible that he finds the last place amid the four brothers of this verse because of his probable usurpation of the throne, in violation of the right of his elder brother, Jehoiakim, and the early fall he met with in consequence. Lastly, that the fourth brother, Zedekiah, whose name (2 Kings 24:17) was originally Mattha-niah, was put on the throne by the King of Babylon, and reigned eleven years in Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:18) after that his nephew Jehoiachin (who could have no son old enough to succeed) was (2 Kings 24:12, 15, 17) carried captive to Babylon."

And again what you are giving me here is pure speculation based on nothing.  Your own wild speculation was already falsified.  The feats of gymnastics you're capable of are astounding, but you have done nothing to dissuade one from a plain reading of the text.

The bottom line is this.  It is factual that when documenting genealogies the Jews were very loose.

Once again, do you have a Biblical example?

So apart from any corroboration we can't know for certain in what order the children were listed in 1 Chronicles 3:15.  However, given the corroborating information found in the book of Kings we can ascertain the relative ages and chronology of succession of these children.  From that information we can determine that the list in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is not in chronological order.  So where scholars use what is clear information (2 Kings) to understand what is known to be unclear information (order of the list in 1 Chron. 3:15), you would seek to do the opposite and claim a contradiction.  This contradiction is a fabrication due to ignorance of the historical context in which the text was written.

You reject the proposal that the order is chronological for no reason other than your aversion to a contradiction in the Bible.  I have absolutely no doubt that you would give nowhere near this much leniency to the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and etc.  Your position is clearly biased and factually unfounded.  In fact, your position is nonexistent because you have not even given a proposal to explain the wording of 1 Chronicles 3:15.

[Nihilist Virus]

As I've stated before, these claims ["they are listed in order of birth" and "they are listed in order of importance"] are not mutually exclusive claims.  Therefore, proving the second one false does not prove the first one true.  


Agreed.

As previously stated, one way in which a genealogy can be listed is in order of importance.  In this specific instance it appears to be the case.

Then you are saying that you have absolutely no factual basis for your claims here, and I am to understand that such claims are made completely ad hoc as a proposed, but unsupported, refutation of a contradiction.

So now I'd like to point out two things:

First, I don't think you know what you're talking about when you say that the Jews were loose with their genealogy.  It may be true that Adam begat David, who begat Jesus, but that does not mean they are being loose with genealogy.  They are merely applying a word which does not exist in common English.  I do not know of a single instance in which offspring are listed out of chronological order.  If you can produce one such instance, I will concede this Zedekiah contradiction to you, provided that you can give me a satisfactory answer to my second point below.

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."

No, as I've claimed in a previous post (#48), the issue isn't one of understanding the Hebrew language, but rather the Jewish culture of the time.

Again, please provide one example of this from the Bible.

Yes, this was addressed and explained in post #35 .  While a bit off topic, I wanted to included this information in the discussion to avoid a potential future objection.  
The word "first born" can both refer to both the first physically born or the one containing the birth right.  In the latter case the 'first-born' is defined as a title of preeminence.  The meaning of first born is illustrated in the septuagint.  If we look at 1 Chronicles 3:15 in the septuagint we find that the word for first-born is the Greek word prototokos.  As you can see from definition it can both mean first born physically or it can mean a person of pre-eminence.  We find the same word being spoken of Christ in Colossians 1:15.  The definition of 'first born' would be determined by the immediate context and any parallel passages or other historical documentation.

Why are you citing a Greek definition?  The Old Testament was not written in that language.  If the Greek translation of the Old Testament employs a word that has multiple meanings in Greek, that says nothing about what was intended in the Hebrew.

Listing the genealogy in the order of the King's rule would be consistent with the Jewish treatment of genealogies.  But not required.

Again, please provide one example of this from the Bible.

If you want some further reading on genealogies and their significance you can read about them here.  Or perhaps you could contact a Jewish Genealogical Society and ask them some questions.

The most relevant information is found in the first link in the 'principles of interpretation' section where it states, "In the present state of our knowledge, and of the text, and also considering the large and vague chronological methods of the Hebrews, the genealogies can give us comparatively little chronological assistance. The uncertainty as to the actual length of a generation, and the custom of frequently omitting links in the descent, increases the difficulty; so that unless they possess special marks of completeness, or have outstanding historical relationships which determine or corroborate them, or several parallel genealogies confirm each other, they must be used with great caution. Their interest is historical, biographical, successional or hereditary, rather than chronological.

You can also read from the Pulpit commentary when it states:  "Verse 15. - The first thing to be observed in this verse is that, though it lays stress on the mention of the name of Josiah's firstborn of four sons as Johanan, this is the only mention of him. Some, however, have taken the Jehoahaz of 2 Kings 23:30 for him. Next, that Jehoiakim was not the original name of the next brother, but a name slightly altered by Pharaoh-Necho from Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34). If the dates of 2 Kings 23:31, 34, 36, be correct, there is no doubt that, though Jehoiakim, i.e. Eliakim, reigned after Jehoahaz, yet he was the elder, and is in his right place in the present passage. Next, that Shallum (Jeremiah 20:11) is another name of the Jehoa-haz of 2 Kings 23:30, 31, 34, and several other places. It is possible that he finds the last place amid the four brothers of this verse because of his probable usurpation of the throne, in violation of the right of his elder brother, Jehoiakim, and the early fall he met with in consequence. Lastly, that the fourth brother, Zedekiah, whose name (2 Kings 24:17) was originally Mattha-niah, was put on the throne by the King of Babylon, and reigned eleven years in Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:18) after that his nephew Jehoiachin (who could have no son old enough to succeed) was (2 Kings 24:12, 15, 17) carried captive to Babylon."

And again what you are giving me here is pure speculation based on nothing.  Your own wild speculation was already falsified.  The feats of gymnastics you're capable of are astounding, but you have done nothing to dissuade one from a plain reading of the text.

The bottom line is this.  It is factual that when documenting genealogies the Jews were very loose.

Once again, do you have a Biblical example?

So apart from any corroboration we can't know for certain in what order the children were listed in 1 Chronicles 3:15.  However, given the corroborating information found in the book of Kings we can ascertain the relative ages and chronology of succession of these children.  From that information we can determine that the list in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is not in chronological order.  So where scholars use what is clear information (2 Kings) to understand what is known to be unclear information (order of the list in 1 Chron. 3:15), you would seek to do the opposite and claim a contradiction.  This contradiction is a fabrication due to ignorance of the historical context in which the text was written.

You reject the proposal that the order is chronological for no reason other than your aversion to a contradiction in the Bible.  I have absolutely no doubt that you would give nowhere near this much leniency to the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and etc.  Your position is clearly biased and factually unfounded.  In fact, your position is nonexistent because you have not even given a proposal to explain the wording of 1 Chronicles 3:15.

[orangebox21]

@Nihilist virus

What evidence do you need?

I have provided scholarly sources showing that genealogies are not necessarily chronological and should not be understood as such.  This contradicts the fundamental premise to your argument and renders it false.  You not only deny the validity of these sources but you deny that I have even provided them at all.

Specifically, what evidence do you need to support the claim that genealogies are not necessarily chronological?  Three, four scholarly sources?  What if I provided four Jewish rabbis who confirm this.  Or is four not enough?  Six then?  Please lay out specifically and concisely exactly what 'proof' you require.

[Nihilist Virus]

@Nihilist virus

What evidence do you need?

I have provided scholarly sources showing that genealogies are not necessarily chronological and should not be understood as such.  This contradicts the fundamental premise to your argument and renders it false.  You not only deny the validity of these sources but you deny that I have even provided them at all.

Specifically, what evidence do you need to support the claim that genealogies are not necessarily chronological?  Three, four scholarly sources?  What if I provided four Jewish rabbis who confirm this.  Or is four not enough?  Six then?  Please lay out specifically and concisely exactly what 'proof' you require.

Your scholars proposed that the kings were listed in order of importance. This was shot down, so I reject it. Why are you now so incredulous? Furthermore, your appeal to scholars is baffling considering that you believe the "Bible" (which you did not define) is the inerrant word of God. That would certainly be a minority view among Bible scholars, even if we only talk about those that are Christians. If I find three, four, maybe six Bible scholars who are Christian and also believe that the Bible contradicts itself, shouldn't that settle the matter? Something tells me that it suddenly won't matter to you that these people are scholars. Even more ludicrous is your hint of bringing in rabbis. Please do, and tell me how many of them believe Jesus fulfilled the duties of the messiah.

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?)

Please lay out specifically and concisely exactly what 'proof' you require.

I already laid out that list in the previous post and I repeated it above for your convenience. It hasn't changed. I don't accept your cherry picking from scholars whose views you largely disagree with and whose quotes may very well have been taken out of context to begin with.

[orangebox21]

1. Definition of "Bible"

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.

2. One example of a genealogy given out of chronological order

1 Chronicles 3:15

3. Explanation of the order of the kings given in 1 Chronicles 3:15 (you abandoned your first proposal on this, right?)

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).


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.

[Nihilist Virus]

1. Definition of "Bible"

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.

2. One example of a genealogy given out of chronological order

1 Chronicles 3:15

3. Explanation of the order of the kings given in 1 Chronicles 3:15 (you abandoned your first proposal on this, right?)

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).


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.

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.


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. I find that to be a reasonable position since, according to your definition, we are arguing about a book that does not even exist.


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.

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


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. According to an investigation of the text, m>n. Therefore, n>m>n by the law the law of transitivity, so n>n by the law of transitivity again, and therefore n does not equal n by the definition of ">". This violates the law of identity which can be used to derive the law of noncontradiction. Therefore the law of noncontradiction does not hold, which, by definition, is a contradiction.

[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.

[Nihilist Virus]

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?

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.      

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.

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.

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?

I concede nothing because I don't agree with your half-baked definition. I was already too lenient on you before.  As you defined it, a Bible is ANY "collection of 66 books written by about 40 authors, in three different languages, on three different continents, and over approximately 1,600 years."  I can include Shakespeare and unicycle assembly instructions so long as I meet your criteria.  If you are going to grill me on what a contradiction is and then demonstrate that you've given no thought to the definition of what I can only assume is the most important book on earth in your eyes, then I cannot help but perceive you as a clown.

Also, the Bible is not 66 books because 1 Samuel through 2 Kings is one book.

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)...


...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.

It seems you will be satisfied that a contradiction exists so long as I can prove that 1 Chronicles 3:15 lists the sons in chronological order.

The ISV says,

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

Here is a link provided for your convenience:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ISV

[orangebox21]

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?

I concede nothing because I don't agree with your half-baked definition.

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.  

I was already too lenient on you before.  As you defined it, a Bible is ANY "collection of 66 books written by about 40 authors, in three different languages, on three different continents, and over approximately 1,600 years."  I can include Shakespeare and unicycle assembly instructions so long as I meet your criteria.  If you are going to grill me on what a contradiction is and then demonstrate that you've given no thought to the definition of what I can only assume is the most important book on earth in your eyes, then I cannot help but perceive you as a clown.

Also, the Bible is not 66 books because 1 Samuel through 2 Kings is one book.

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

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

...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.

It seems you will be satisfied that a contradiction exists so long as I can prove that 1 Chronicles 3:15 lists the sons in chronological order.

The ISV says,

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

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.