Login

Nihilist Virus · (This post was last modified: February 11, 2016 at 4:26 pm by Nihilist Virus.)

(February 11, 2016 at 10:19 am)orangebox21 Wrote: ...

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?

[Image: 958a278534504f30e1d04fce2c50818535f926c9...799ad3.jpg]

[Image: 958a278534504f30e1d04fce2c50818535f926c9...799ad3.jpg]

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.

GrandizerII · February 11, 2016 at 3:06 pm

(February 10, 2016 at 9:39 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: 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.

orangebox21 · February 17, 2016 at 11:54 am

(February 11, 2016 at 2:29 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: 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 (post #53).

Compare 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.

If you agree that I have given you a single instance in which offspring are listed out of chronological order we can move on to giving a "satisfactory answer" to your second point.

Nihilist Virus · February 18, 2016 at 3:48 am

(February 17, 2016 at 11:54 am)orangebox21 Wrote:
(February 11, 2016 at 2:29 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: 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 (post #53).
Compare 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.

1 Chronicles 2:1-2. "These are the sons of Israel (Jacob); Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, 2Dan, Joseph, and Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.

Genesis 35:22-25 "Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: 23The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun: 24The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin: 25And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali: 26And the sons of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid; Gad, and Asher: these are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padanaram.

Genesis 29:31-30:24
31And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. 32And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. 33And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. 34And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi. 35And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing. 1And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die. 2And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb? 3And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. 4And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her. 5And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son. 6And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan. 7And Bilhah Rachel's maid conceived again, and bare Jacob a second son. 8And Rachel said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali. 9When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. 10And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son. 11And Leah said, A troop cometh: and she called his name Gad. 12And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a second son. 13And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher. 14And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son's mandrakes. 15And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes. 16And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night. 17And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob the fifth son. 18And Leah said, God hath given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband: and she called his name Issachar. 19And Leah conceived again, and bare Jacob the sixth son. 20And Leah said, God hath endued me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have born him six sons: and she called his name Zebulun. 21And afterwards she bare a daughter, and called her name Dinah. 22And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb. 23And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken away my reproach: 24And she called his name Joseph; and said, The LORD shall add to me another son.

Genesis 35:16-19 "16And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour. 17And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also. 18And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin. 19And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem."

The genealogy in 1 Chronicles has them:
1. Reuben
2. Simeon
3. Levi
4. Judah
5. Issachar
6. Zebulun
7. Dan
8. Joseph
9. Benjamin
10. Naphtali
11. Gad
12. Asher

The genealogy in Genesis 35 has them:
1. Reuben
2. Simeon
3. Levi
4. Judah
5. Issachar
6. Zebulun
7. Joseph
8. Benjamin
9. Dan
10. Naphtali
11. Gad
12. Asher

The chronology in Genesis 29-30/35 has them:
1. Reuben
2. Simeon
3. Levi
4. Judah
5. Dan
6. Naphtali
7. Gad
8. Asher
9. Issachar
10. Zebulun
11. Joseph
12. Benjamin

If you agree that I have given you a single instance in which offspring are listed out of chronological order we can move on to giving a "satisfactory answer" to your second point.

Genesis 35:22-25 is extraneous as it is grouping the sons by mother. I did not look at it to determine if each maternal group is given in chronological order because the rest of your case is solid enough. So yes I agree I've been given a satisfactory answer to the first point.

orangebox21 · February 18, 2016 at 11:36 am

(February 18, 2016 at 3:48 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote: 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.

(February 11, 2016 at 3:06 pm)Irrational Wrote:
(February 10, 2016 at 9:39 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: 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.

drfuzzy · February 18, 2016 at 2:34 pm

(February 18, 2016 at 11:36 am)orangebox21 Wrote:
(February 18, 2016 at 3:48 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

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:

Quote: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?)

Quote: #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.

(February 11, 2016 at 3:06 pm)Irrational Wrote:

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.

He has an autographed, personally signed copy. GAWD told me that he wrote the book personally, and my mommy and daddy told me so too!!! The book is HOLY. The book is SPECIAL!! And so am I, and all of you who don't agree are big poopy-heads.

The canon of God. It's the ultimate canon of bullshit.

Nihilist Virus · February 18, 2016 at 4:10 pm

(February 18, 2016 at 11:36 am)orangebox21 Wrote: #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.

#1
The canon of God.

You follow up your applaudable exegesis with this. Like you stuck the landing and then tripped during your walk off the mat.

See, if you define the Bible as the canon of God, you are not eliminating the Koran, the book of Mormon, and etc. Perhaps you also hold these dear, and your gymnastics in their defense are equally or even more bizarre. But I don't think you intended for those things to be in your canon. Even if you want to say that Allah is not Jehovah, I don't see how you exclude Joseph Smith's contributions.

Furthermore, there are no instructions in the Bible on how to canonize the Bible. This makes it a canonization of men. But even if I am to be very charitable, and I just wink wink and say that I know what you are trying to say, you still lose the argument. In no way have you shown (or even attempted to show) that the ISV is a rejected version of the Bible. Recall that it portrays 1 Chronicles 3:15 as,

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

Regardless of the fact that Jews did not always list sons in order, it is plain that the ISV affirms that 1 Chronicles 3:15 does give a chronological order. You cannot lawyer your way through this one. The best you can offer is that the ISV has a transcriber error here, which will shift the focus to transcriber errors - provided, of course, that you can define the Bible for us.

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

By saying this you are conceding the entire debate because I asked for an explanation of the ordering of the sons. At best this answer is simply irrelevant and nonsensical.

The list takes the effort to give the sons an ordering. You deny that it is a chronological ordering despite making no attempt whatsoever to debunk the ISV or even define what is or isn't a Bible. Your claim that it is an order of importance was debunked as it used a false premise, was vacuous in terms of evidence, and was nonsensical because it lists two vassal kings as more "important" than a legitimate successor to the throne because the vassal kings ruled longer... but OF COURSE they ruled longer - they were bowing down touching the head to the ground before emperors and surrendering goods as tribute. To say that such kings are revered more than Shallum - even if he actually was a usurper - is going to require evidence. Also note that Jehoiakim was cursed by God (Jeremiah 22:18-19), yet according to you he is listed first among his brothers in terms of importance.

God of Mr. Hanky · February 18, 2016 at 4:30 pm

(January 25, 2016 at 4:27 am)Kitan Wrote: I think an introduction thread would have been better.

After seeing this, I just may be filing a formal request to set up a "Please Spank Me" forum for the establishedbut notorious forum sociopaths who offer advice to new members on the social nuances of life on this site.

orangebox21 · February 24, 2016 at 1:29 pm

(February 18, 2016 at 2:34 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:
He has an autographed, personally signed copy. GAWD told me that he wrote the book personally, and my mommy and daddy told me so too!!! The book is HOLY. The book is SPECIAL!! And so am I, and all of you who don't agree are big poopy-heads.
The canon of God. It's the ultimate canon of bullshit.

Two questions. First, why are you lying? Second, what did you think Christians meant by the terms 'the word of God' and 'revelation?'

(February 18, 2016 at 4:10 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:
(February 18, 2016 at 11:36 am)orangebox21 Wrote: #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.
#1
The canon of God.
You follow up your applaudable exegesis with this. Like you stuck the landing and then tripped during your walk off the mat.
Good thing there's no deductions for that.
See, if you define the Bible as the canon of God, you are not eliminating the Koran, the book of Mormon, and etc. Perhaps you also hold these dear, and your gymnastics in their defense are equally or even more bizarre. But I don't think you intended for those things to be in your canon. Even if you want to say that Allah is not Jehovah, I don't see how you exclude Joseph Smith's contributions.
Furthermore, there are no instructions in the Bible on how to canonize the Bible. This makes it a canonization of men. But even if I am to be very charitable, and I just wink wink and say that I know what you are trying to say, you still lose the argument. In no way have you shown (or even attempted to show) that the ISV is a rejected version of the Bible. Recall that it portrays 1 Chronicles 3:15 as,
Josiah’s descendants included Johanan his firstborn, his second born Jehoiakim, his third born Zedekiah, and his fourth born Shallum.
Regardless of the fact that Jews did not always list sons in order, it is plain that the ISV affirms that 1 Chronicles 3:15 does give a chronological order. You cannot lawyer your way through this one. The best you can offer is that the ISV has a transcriber error here, which will shift the focus to transcriber errors - provided, of course, that you can define the Bible for us.

#3
The list in 1 Chronicles is one of heredity.
By saying this you are conceding the entire debate because I asked for an explanation of the ordering of the sons. At best this answer is simply irrelevant and nonsensical.
The list takes the effort to give the sons an ordering. You deny that it is a chronological ordering despite making no attempt whatsoever to debunk the ISV or even define what is or isn't a Bible. Your claim that it is an order of importance was debunked as it used a false premise, was vacuous in terms of evidence, and was nonsensical because it lists two vassal kings as more "important" than a legitimate successor to the throne because the vassal kings ruled longer... but OF COURSE they ruled longer - they were bowing down touching the head to the ground before emperors and surrendering goods as tribute. To say that such kings are revered more than Shallum - even if he actually was a usurper - is going to require evidence. Also note that Jehoiakim was cursed by God (Jeremiah 22:18-19), yet according to you he is listed first among his brothers in terms of importance.

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. 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. 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.

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?

drfuzzy · February 24, 2016 at 1:50 pm

(February 24, 2016 at 1:29 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:
(February 18, 2016 at 2:34 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:
He has an autographed, personally signed copy. GAWD told me that he wrote the book personally, and my mommy and daddy told me so too!!! The book is HOLY. The book is SPECIAL!! And so am I, and all of you who don't agree are big poopy-heads.
The canon of God. It's the ultimate canon of bullshit.
Quote:Two questions. First, why are you lying? Second, what did you think Christians meant by the terms 'the word of God' and 'revelation?'

(February 18, 2016 at 4:10 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

#1
The canon of God.
You follow up your applaudable exegesis with this. Like you stuck the landing and then tripped during your walk off the mat.
Good thing there's no deductions for that.
See, if you define the Bible as the canon of God, you are not eliminating the Koran, the book of Mormon, and etc. Perhaps you also hold these dear, and your gymnastics in their defense are equally or even more bizarre. But I don't think you intended for those things to be in your canon. Even if you want to say that Allah is not Jehovah, I don't see how you exclude Joseph Smith's contributions.
Furthermore, there are no instructions in the Bible on how to canonize the Bible. This makes it a canonization of men. But even if I am to be very charitable, and I just wink wink and say that I know what you are trying to say, you still lose the argument. In no way have you shown (or even attempted to show) that the ISV is a rejected version of the Bible. Recall that it portrays 1 Chronicles 3:15 as,
Josiah’s descendants included Johanan his firstborn, his second born Jehoiakim, his third born Zedekiah, and his fourth born Shallum.
Regardless of the fact that Jews did not always list sons in order, it is plain that the ISV affirms that 1 Chronicles 3:15 does give a chronological order. You cannot lawyer your way through this one. The best you can offer is that the ISV has a transcriber error here, which will shift the focus to transcriber errors - provided, of course, that you can define the Bible for us.

#3
The list in 1 Chronicles is one of heredity.
By saying this you are conceding the entire debate because I asked for an explanation of the ordering of the sons. At best this answer is simply irrelevant and nonsensical.
The list takes the effort to give the sons an ordering. You deny that it is a chronological ordering despite making no attempt whatsoever to debunk the ISV or even define what is or isn't a Bible. Your claim that it is an order of importance was debunked as it used a false premise, was vacuous in terms of evidence, and was nonsensical because it lists two vassal kings as more "important" than a legitimate successor to the throne because the vassal kings ruled longer... but OF COURSE they ruled longer - they were bowing down touching the head to the ground before emperors and surrendering goods as tribute. To say that such kings are revered more than Shallum - even if he actually was a usurper - is going to require evidence. Also note that Jehoiakim was cursed by God (Jeremiah 22:18-19), yet according to you he is listed first among his brothers in terms of importance.

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. 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. 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.

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?

"Two questions. First, why are you lying?" I could ask you the same thing. "The canon of god." Moronic supercilious bullshit.
"Second, what did you think Christians meant by the terms 'the word of God' and 'revelation?' " I was raised fundamentalist, and xtian for 46 years. "The Word of God" means "a preacher told me that this book is really holy and special, and all the words in the book were given by god as a revelation to whoever wrote it down". Which transforms a bunch of ridiculous evil fables cobbled together by a bunch of bronze-age goat herders into something preachers can use to gain power of the poor idiots that believe what they are told.
I really can't believe that anyone who has studied this shit-pile evil badly-written mishmash of supposed literature would EVER be quoting it to anyone. (And I have most of it memorized, I'm horrified to admit.) Much less think that it is worth studying as something other than an obviously fallible bunch of absurd myths.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Christians vs Christians (yec)	Fake Messiah	52	7898	January 31, 2019 at 2:08 pm Last Post: The Grand Nudger
	New way: Open Source Christianity Born in Iran.	A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c	28	4356	September 9, 2018 at 2:22 pm Last Post: brewer
	Christian Teacher writes letter to school newspaper saying "Gays deserve to die"	Divinity	68	18657	May 23, 2017 at 9:01 am Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
	UMC -- open hearts, open minds. Ha!	Jehanne	13	1893	June 24, 2016 at 6:36 pm Last Post: Jehanne
	Why do Christians become Christians?	SteveII	168	31401	May 20, 2016 at 8:43 pm Last Post: drfuzzy
	Greetings,I commence open challenge to anyone	Grehoman Ebenezer	148	27809	September 25, 2015 at 12:10 pm Last Post: Fidel_Castronaut
	Christians. Prove That You Are Real/True Christians	Nope	155	51460	September 1, 2015 at 1:26 pm Last Post: Pyrrho
	JUST OPEN YOUR HEART, DAMMIT!	Athene	174	32799	August 25, 2015 at 2:15 am Last Post: robvalue
	Gods love letter to you	evar	2	1608	August 2, 2015 at 12:34 am Last Post: Jackalope
	Open Letter To Christians	Cinjin	143	15430	July 11, 2015 at 3:33 pm Last Post: loganonekenobi