Open letter to Christians

[Nihilist Virus]

...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...

Actually the Bible was written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists. They weren't goat herders... or if they were, they were certainly quite terrible at breeding goats. Rememer Genesis 30:37-39.

I'm guessing you didn't recite that one at the dinner table either.

[drfuzzy]

...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...

Actually the Bible was written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists.  They weren't goat herders... or if they were, they were certainly quite terrible at breeding goats.  Rememer Genesis 30:37-39.

I'm guessing you didn't recite that one at the dinner table either.  

Oh yeah, apparently god says that if you have sex while looking at stripes, your children will be striped.  Xtians should try that one.  Human zebras would be awesome.     I don't know why folks latch onto "goat-herders".  They had goats, (striped, speckled and spotted ones) they had sheep, camels, donkeys, oxen . . .

[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."

[Simon Moon]

My name is a reference to the fact that I do not believe in logical axioms as being absolutely true.  But thanks for the disgusting comment. You represent your savior well.  He condemned dining with sinners and of course encouraged all who would listen to judge others.

Your name associates you with tearing everything down, don't dodge the definition of what you claim to be. Don't blame the truth for your hurt feelings.

Proof that you have no subtlety of thought.

There have long been different types of nihilism (metaphysical nihilism, epistemological nihilism, existential nihilism just to name 3).

But no. You have you own (low information) idea of what nihilism is, and you're going to stick with it. No matter how wrong you are.

Not surprised. But always disappointed.

[Nihilist Virus]

Your name associates you with tearing everything down, don't dodge the definition of what you claim to be. Don't blame the truth for your hurt feelings.

Proof that you have no subtlety of thought.

There have long been different types of nihilism (metaphysical nihilism, epistemological nihilism, existential nihilism just to name 3).

But no. You have you own (low information) idea of what nihilism is, and you're going to stick with it. No matter how wrong you are.

Not surprised. But always disappointed.

Not to mention that, as I said, by his logic his own name associates himself with genocide, torture, and various other atrocities committed at the behest of his deity.

[GrandizerII]

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.

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.

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

[Angrboda]

The original text appears to support Nihilist Virus' point.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_chronicles/3-15.htm

[GrandizerII]

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.

Not fooled at all. Just tired of dealing with the word games orangebox typically likes to play. He/she does that in every exchange I've had with him. There's no intellectual honesty.

[drfuzzy]

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.

Not fooled at all. Just tired of dealing with the word games orangebox typically likes to play. He/she does that in every exchange I've had with him. There's no intellectual honesty.

Bible "Apologetics" and intellectual honesty are mutually exclusive terms.