Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[Archaeopteryx]

Whether or not I am a worthy opponent is something I will leave to you to decide.

It would seem that the consensus is that you are not.

 

[HitchSlap]

Whether or not I am a worthy opponent is something I will leave to you to decide.

A Don Quixote, perhaps.

 

[anonymous person]

Familiar with mine?

1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim,Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30, Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah in italics is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring toZedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31, 2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiahis his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.


QED

You have yet to establish that the author intended to give a list of the men's birth order. If that was his intention, then indeed he would have been in error.

Secondly, Jehoiachin reigning in his father's stead for three months as an humble vassal of the Assyrians is scarcely deserving to be taken into account and therefore is in no way contradictory to the prophetic menace found in the verse you referenced.

 

[anonymous person]

It would seem that the consensus is that you are not.

I am not bothered by the fact that the consensus of atheists here is that I am an unworthy opponent. It is a consensus I actually expect.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not bothered by the fact that the consensus of atheists here is that I am an unworthy opponent. It is a consensus I actually expect.

No, indeed, nothing fazes you, not even your total lack of credibility.

 

[HitchSlap]

You have yet to establish that the author intended to give a list of the men's birth order. If that was his intention, then indeed he would have been in error.

Secondly, Jehoiachin reigning in his father's stead for three months as an humble vassal of the Assyrians is scarcely deserving to be taken into account and therefore is in no way contradictory to the prophetic menace found in the verse you referenced.

In your opinion, was it customary practice to list children in order of birth with ancient literature?

 

[anonymous person]

No, indeed, nothing fazes you, not even your total lack of credibility.

But there are those that do find what I say credible.

And yes you are correct. I am totally unfazed by the fact that some atheists find me to be totally lacking in credibility.

 

[HitchSlap]

But there are those that do find what I say credible.

And yes you are correct. I am totally unfazed by the fact that some atheists find me to be totally lacking in credibility.

Right, because Jesus said you would be persecuted for following him. Amiright?

 

[anonymous person]

In your opinion, was it customary practice to list children in order of birth with ancient literature?

There are several different ways descendents are listed in the bible. The immediate context in conjunction with the overall body of text determines which way.

This applies to other ancient works as well.

 

[anonymous person]

Right, because Jesus said you would be persecuted for following him. Amiright?

He said that, but that is not why I am unfazed.

 

[HitchSlap]

There are several different ways descendents are listed in the bible. The immediate context in conjunction with the overall body of text determines which way.

This applies to other ancient works as well.

So what reason do we have to not assume this is a chronological listing, other than because it creates a contradiction?

 

[HitchSlap]

He said that, but that is not why I am unfazed.

In my opinion it's exactly why you're "unfazed." Just because you're a Christian and god's on your side, doesn't make what you say any less vacuous.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You have yet to establish that the author intended to give a list of the men's birth order. If that was his intention, then indeed he would have been in error.

1 Chronicles 3:15King James Version (KJV)
15 And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.

This is not listing the birth order?

Secondly, Jehoiachin reigning in his father's stead for three months as an humble vassal of the Assyrians is scarcely deserving to be taken into account and therefore is in no way contradictory to the prophetic menace found in the verse you referenced.

I am aware of this defense, and that is why I did not say that Jehoiachin's rule contradicts the prophecy. However, an 11-year rule by his brother would contradict the prophecy.

So once again we have a contradiction either way.


Therefore God either wants there to be errors in the Bible, or he does not care.

Which is the case, why, and what does it mean?

 

[oi_antz]

How would one objectively verify Jesus' claim?

According to what He claims, that if those who love the truth recognise that what He says is true, then we would first need to identify a person who loves the truth. Then when such a person is found, they would put this claim to the test by considering whether they recognise that what He says is true. I am one of those people, so I am able to do this. But in having said that, you are asking a loaded question, seeing as it assumes objectiveness is always achievable.

 

[HitchSlap]

According to what He claims, that if those who love the truth recognise that what He says is true, then we would first need to identify a person who loves the truth. Then when such a person is found, they would put this claim to the test by considering whether they recognise that what He says is true. I am one of those people, so I am able to do this. But in having said that, you are asking a loaded question, seeing as it assumes objectiveness is always achievable.

Excellent point. Which is why unverifiable claims should be taken with a 'grain of salt.' Agreed?

 

[oi_antz]

I am not bothered by the fact that the consensus of atheists here is that I am an unworthy opponent. It is a consensus I actually expect.

If I may permitted to add that IMO you are not a worthy opponent to these people. However, I do believe The Truth is a worthy opponent, and I believe you are a capable servant.

I am making effort to suggest that you could be useful by concentrating less on viewing yourself as their subject, and more on representing the truths He has shown you, and to be impartial. In other words, as I was discussing with a friend last night, do not let your personal likes and dislikes affect your judgements. He was describing how he had tolerated people's boasting of having taken billboard posters for their keepsake, because the event was one that he was morally opposed to, and describing how in hindsight he would have discouraged it if the event had been one of his favour. I found that he was motivated by spite to do that. We established that a repentant Christian (the one who loves the truth) actually does not refuse to know of their faults, because by acknowledging our faults then we can improve and become less faulty. Yet, a Christian who is proud to represent their clan might resist acknowledging their fault so as to not expose their weakness and bring Jesus Christ into disrepute. To answer that, I would suggest James 4:5-6

Or what do you think the Scripture means when it says that the Holy Spirit, whom God has placed within us, watches over us with tender jealousy?

But he gives us more and more strength to stand against all such evil longings. As the Scripture says, God gives strength to the humble but sets himself against the proud and haughty.

 

[oi_antz]

Excellent point. Which is why unverifiable claims should be taken with a 'grain of salt.' Agreed?

Indeed. The salt brings forth the flavour. But, what good is the salt if it has lost it's saltiness? Then it becomes good for nothing. A great truth can be observed in this. It does not of course claim to have any relevance to the chemical science of salt, but rather to carry a much more personal truth by way of illustration. Please go on with your thoughts, I enjoyed that!

 

[HitchSlap]

Indeed. The salt brings forth the flavour. But, what good is the salt if it has lost it's saltiness? Then it becomes good for nothing. A great truth can be observed in this. It does not of course claim to have any relevance to the chemical science of salt, but rather to carry a much more personal truth by way of illustration. Please go on with your thoughts, I enjoyed that!

Would you agree that:

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn some things about reality.
3. Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

 

[oi_antz]

Would you agree that:

1. Reality exists.

It certainly appears to. Suggesting otherwise could not possibly resonate with truth.

2. We can learn some things about reality.

I agree with this.

3. Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

These terms are unfamiliar to me. Is it important for me to understand these terms, or can you bring your point to me using more general language?

 

[HitchSlap]

These terms are unfamiliar to me. Is it important for me to understand these terms, or can you bring your point to me using more general language?

Acceptance of claims which can be objectively and independently corroborated is better than accepting claims that are unsupportable.