Bill Snedden

I am in reasonable health and happy to see you once more. I hope you are doing well yourself.

Thanks for your attempt at clarification, but I'm afraid it really raises more questions than it settles.

I think that we've been down this path before. Using "persons" and "personal" in the manner in which you're doing doesn't really seem to make the point you think it does.

"Personal" is an adjective applied to things that are "of a person." So, of course only persons produce the "personal": that's the definition of the word. Your argument is therefore self-referential and self-referential reasoning, also called circular reasoning, is a logical fallacy.

As I know that I've noted to you before, we can also say "only dogs produce the dogsonal". If we define "dogsonal" to mean "of a dog", then it should come as no surprise to see that our sentence makes perfect sense.

However, I suspect that you won't agree with this (no big surprise there!). You obviously don't believe your argument to be circular, even though in its present formulation it clearly seems to be. That's why I asked you to provide some non-self-referential definitions in my last post: I believe that there are some hidden premises in what you mean by "person" and "personal" that eliminate the circularity for you, but which are not clear to the rest of us.

So, since you're not claiming, as I originally believed, that "personal" meant "rational and conscious", perhaps you could provide non-self-referential definitions of "person" and "personal". In that way, we can get beyond the apparent circularity of your position and see what you really mean...

Regards,

Bill Snedden
_______________
"Though 'bother it' I may, Occasionally say, I never use a big, big 'D'" W.S. Gilbert

NOGO

"He reduced her from a wife to a protitute."
Ed, I can live with this definition of "humbled" and that is the way it is used in Deut 21:14


This kind of arguement cuts both ways.
If it was consensual then he did not humble her she humbled herself.


Ed, I am glad to see that you are not a dead rock and that you do respond to arguements. Then again maybe I just don't articulate them well enough ...

Ah! the stories you make up.

The month was to mourn her parents. Ed, what you need to come to terms with is the situation itself. This woman was captured in battle and her people massacred. She is a slave. The. "Marriage" (to me rape) is not something that she can refuse. No woman who is free will accept to marry the butchers of her parents.

As you point out above "humble" may mean to take a decent woman and make her into a prostitute. Whether you admit it or not this decent girl who still lived with her parents end up being "humbled" in that very sense.

In those days a woman who was not married and not a virgin was considered scrap and that is the reason that such women were not captured in battled but simply killed.

You see, Ed, women had value only if they were virgins otherwise they were sinners and were required to die.
What a wonderfully moral world these people lived in.

winstonjen

No, because at least prostitutes get paid. The virgins captured in war would be treated more like sex objects according to the Bible.

NOGO

So you are saying that Matthew skipped generations in his genealogy of Jesus. Let's see ...

Matthew gives 14 names from David to the deportation he then tells in verse 17 that there are 14 generations.

Where are the skipped generations?

Are you saying, Ed, that Matthew is wrong when he says that there are 14 generations from David to the deportation?

Butters

deleted extra post

Ed

The Princeton biblical scholar William Henry Green explained this in detail many years ago. But you can see many more obvious examples in other parts of the bible. In Matthew 1:1, it says Jesus is the son of David, the son of Abraham, this is a skip of over 2000 years worth of generations. Also look at the high priestly line of Aaron appearing in I Chronicles 6:3-14 and Ezra 7:1-15. Chronicles has 22 generations and names and Ezra has sixteen. When the two lists are placed side by side, it is clear that Ezra deliberately skipped the 8th name to the 15th name thereby abridging his list, but in a way that was legitimate within the traditons of Scripture. This is exactly what Matthew was doing. In fact Ezra 8:12 abridges the list even further seemingly implying that a great grandson and grandson of Aaron, along with a son of David came up with Ezra from Babylon after the captivity! Of course Ezra was only indicating the most important persons for the sake of his shorter list. And there are many other examples. For more details about how the bible genealogies give the age of the ancestor that initiates a family line, read "Hard Sayings of the Bible" by Walter Kaiser pages 48-50.

Jack the Bodiless

It does not say that Abraham BEGAT David or that David BEGAT Jesus. And it's immediately followed by the "begats" in the actual genealogy!

So you're wrong.
Chronicles and Ezra CONTRADICT each other! This is clear right from the outset: they don't even agree on the names of Levi's sons! The sons of Levi are Gershon, Kohath, and Merari (as stated four times in Chronicles), NOT Mahli.

The "traditions of Scripture" is simply the tradition that errors must never be admitted. It is traditional for inerrantists to ASSUME missing names whenever this is necessary to cover an error.
Of course there are! Like the contradictory genealogies of Jesus, for instance. But they're ALL Biblical errors. This is clear from the specific count of "fourteen generations" in Matthew.
Quote the relevant passage. Don't expect me to buy a book just to read one paragraph of it. But I hope Kaiser can come up with something better than "I assume they must have done it this way because otherwise the Bible would be wrong".

So far, you have failed to support your assertion that the word translated as "begat" ever means anything other than "fathered" (or "mothered"), or that the Hebrews ever deliberately skipped generations in genealogies. Nor have you actually provided any support for the claim that ANY culture has EVER used this bizarre "X became the ancestor of Y when he fathered the one destined to become the NEXT ancestor of Y" system.

I win, you lose (again).

Ed

No, that would not be legitimate capital punishment, read Deut. 24:16.

Ed

That is no different, computers have output based on how they are programmed not on the actual evidence presented especially if the evidence was not considered in the program. So again without a free will your arguments are self refuting. Because you cannot weigh unexpected evidence that is not in your "program". Therefore, you cannot make a true "decision". If the judge does not have free will then the idea of justice does not exist.

winstonjen

Actually, the slaughter of the Amalekites shows that punishing the children is 'justified', because of what the parents did. The whole concept of "Original Sin" is based on this. If you think my analogy is not appropriate, please present evidence of this.