Disprove Scriptural inspiration

[sparklecat]

1. 2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:12 states: To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
3. As Paul clearly states that he is giving this command, not God, then either this verse is not inspired by God or Paul is wrong.
4. If Paul is wrong, his statement that he, not the Lord, is commanding this, is false and therefore uninspired.
5. Therefore all Scripture is not inspired by God.


What do you think? Any problems or weak points?

The only way out I see is to state either that the 1 Corinthians verse isn't Scripture or God inspires error...

[Yahweh]

Triadboy is the real authorative figure on the biblical stuff, but I would think one of the first blows against the devine inspiration of the bible is the assumption of a hypothetical supreme being in the first place... its a shaky premise.

http://216.218.248.155/datastore/d1/0f/b/d10f4ff7271919624fdb5fba5c7f87cd.jpg

I wouldnt see how the bible is any more "devinely inspired" than any other Holy book that has ever been written.

ChristianAnswers.net - Is the Bible True? (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html) gives some unusual answers. The ones I found the most interesting were
Scientific Accuracy

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

* Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
<blockquote>It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in (maybe the Earth is a flat disc...)</blockquote>

* Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
<blockquote>For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.</blockquote>

* Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
<blockquote>But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (It just sounds like God wants to Earth to burn and the unbelievers to burn with it...)</blockquote>

* Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
<blockquote>All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.</blockquote>

* Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
<blockquote>As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.</blockquote>

* Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
<blockquote>25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end</blockquote>

* Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
<blockquote>For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (This particular verse is an endorsement of animal sarcrifices)</blockquote>

* Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
<blockquote>The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.</blockquote>

* Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
<blockquote>He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.</blockquote>

* and many others.

These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.
I'm sorry, maybe its my lack of faith that is blinding me, but I just cant fathom in any interpretive or literal way most of these verses demonstrate the science that ChristianAnswers.net says they demonstrate...

It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible -- in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.
I have one response to this: The firmament.

[sparklecat]

Oh, sure, I agree with most of what you say. I'm no proponent of Scriptural inerrancy, or direct inspiration. Just looking for a way to argue the point without debating each little contradiction endlessly.

Thought a deductive proof might help, if I could keep enough holes out of it...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by sparklecat
1. 2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:12 states: To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
3. As Paul clearly states that he is giving this command, not God, then either this verse is not inspired by God or Paul is wrong.
4. If Paul is wrong, his statement that he, not the Lord, is commanding this, is false and therefore uninspired.
5. Therefore all Scripture is not inspired by God.


Some have 2 Timothy 3:16 a little differently. Instead of "God-breathed", they have "given by inspiration of God".

I don't see how Paul giving the saying negates inspiration by God.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by sparklecat
1. 2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:12 states: To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
3. As Paul clearly states that he is giving this command, not God, then either this verse is not inspired by God or Paul is wrong.
4. If Paul is wrong, his statement that he, not the Lord, is commanding this, is false and therefore uninspired.
5. Therefore all Scripture is not inspired by God.


What do you think? Any problems or weak points?

The only way out I see is to state either that the 1 Corinthians verse isn't Scripture or God inspires error...

God can do irrational things that make no sense to us because he's all-powerful and all-knowing. Therefore it only looks like error.

But if anyone actually argues that, they're making all conversation about God into irrational nonsense, so you can just leave them to their babbling.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Some have 2 Timothy 3:16 a little differently. Instead of "God-breathed", they have "given by inspiration of God".

I don't see how Paul giving the saying negates inspiration by God.

Because its in Scripture- and if he's saying that its not inspired by God (not sure how else he could clearly state that), then all Scripture can't be inspired.


c4ts- Aye, indeed.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Sparkle, I thought I found one slight problem with your conclusion as it appears as though Paul is claiming he's speaking with the permission of God a few verses earlier.
1 Cor 7:6 But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment.
but when I checked alternate translations I find that permission isn't the most accurate modern translation.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1071209813-8456.html#6
Revised Standard Version: I say this by way of concession, not of command.

The only out I can possibly see is that an apologist might claim that Paul was writing under an inspired spirit when he wrote it. Otherwise I think your logic is solid. Paul is clearly speaking for himself, not for God. You can toss 2 Tim 3:16 as any internal proof of inerrancy.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
The only out I can possibly see is that an apologist might claim that Paul was writing under an inspired spirit when he wrote it. Otherwise I think your logic is solid. Paul is clearly speaking for himself, not for God. You can toss 2 Tim 3:16 as any internal proof of inerrancy.

I've run into that in a discussion. But then it was asked how Paul could say any more clearly that he is saying something, not God, if he wanted to get that across, which I don't think anyone answered. :D

[calladus]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Oh, sure, I agree with most of what you say. I'm no proponent of Scriptural inerrancy, or direct inspiration. Just looking for a way to argue the point without debating each little contradiction endlessly.

Thought a deductive proof might help, if I could keep enough holes out of it...

Sparklecat, this is EXACTLY what non-believers have hit on again and again until we are sick to death of it.

Non believers point out parts of the bible that contradict, or conflicts with modern scientific knowledge, or that obviously borrows itself from an earlier, non-Christian religion. And as soon as we point at one of these items, a dozen true believers jump in and start arm waving and tap dancing, debating the point and talking in circles until they wear us down and we are sick of hearing from them anymore.

If a non-believer persists, then he or she is finally told that the item is being taken 'out of context' or that it must be 'taken on faith' or even worse, the true believer will stand firm on a foundation of willful ignorance.

Non-believers that make a comprehensive list of Bible errors, who do a decent job of it, are written off as Atheist Zealots, practicing their Atheist Religion.

Here, I'm psychic, and I'll make a prediction that will absolutly win Randi's challange!

If you create a good argument that proves the bible's inaccuracys, contradictions, or proof against god, then you will be labeled as either hateful or will be dismissed as an atheist kook by true believers.

[sparklecat]

Sick unto death I sympathize with... I'm in the middle of finals now (great time to get insomnia, huh?), and I get a bit annoyed when people lambast me about refusing to show them these supposed errors, no matter how many times I've told them I will get them a list when I'm out of school.

As for those I actually have brought up... its amazing how many hoops they'll jump through to show how its not a contradiction. Even after I point out that their policy of reinterpreting one passage to fit another makes it impossible to test whether the Bible is true or not...

Yes, I've also been told that my desire for it to be false makes me not able to see how they all fit together so nicely! :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

I've been googling and found a few things.

www.biblequery.org/2tim.htm+2+timothy+contradictions&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:XKojv-HeKYcJ:Comment on 2 Tim 3:16 (scroll to highlighted)

And seaching the same source for the 1 Cor verse we get this.
Q: Are 1 Cor 7:12-16 and 1 Cor 7:25-29 scripture, or just Paul’s opinion?
A: Some try to say it is just Paul’s personal opinion, and conservative Christians say it is still authoritative teaching. All should be able to agree on three things
1. There is no teaching in the surrounding verses of 1 Corinthians 7:8-13 and 7:17 that we cannot glean from elsewhere in the Bible.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:14-16 is a new teaching found no where else in the New Testament, and 1 Corinthians 7:12-13 is a prelude to this.
3. Paul is saying the Lord did not directly say this.
4. Paul said what he wrote was the words of God in 1 Corinthians 2:13; 14:37. Peter said Paul’s words were scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
5. Paul never said this did not have the apostolic authority of his other teaching.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.589-591, Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.242-244, When Critics Ask p.457-458, and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.397-398 for more info.

And this gem of a section from thebereans.net
http://thebereans.net/ref-biblos.shtml#inspiration

II. Does the Inspiration of The Bible Extend to Every Part?

Yes. From the dry lists in Chronicles to the very words of God in Exodus, and through Christ. And more, it extends to every sentence, word, mark, point, jot and tittle in the original parchments. When Jesus said in Matt. 5:17, 18, That not one "jot" or "tittle" should pass from the Law until all be fulfilled, he referred to the smallest letter (jot) and the smallest mark (tittle), of the Hebrew language, thus indicating that even they were inspired, and were necessary for a complete understanding of God's meaning in His Word.

and a little lower we have this
As we have seen "Bible Inspiration" is something totally different and unique from the inspiration of Poets, Writers and Public Speakers. It is an inspiration in which the Exact Words of God are Imparted to the Speaker or Writer by the Holy Spirit.

So once again, their claiming every single mark in the Bible is Scripture inspired by God, while several sentences of it are Paul himself writing that his opinions are his alone.

And of course the boys over at Tekton have their say as well.
http://www.tektonics.org/concession.html

Verse 12 looks quite imposing, but it too does not take much effort to investigate. In v10, Paul directly appeals to the teachings of our Lord such as those in Matt 5:32 and 19:3-9. He says in v10: "To the married I give this command, not I, but the Lord." The rest of verses 10 and 11 are restatements and reminders of Jesus' words on divorce. Now Paul is going to deal with something Jesus is not recorded as dealing with in the gospel accounts: marriage and divorce when one partner is a believer and the other is not. As these words of Paul in verses 12-40 are not issues that Jesus directly addressed [if He did address these issues they are not recorded], Paul states that it is he and not Jesus who is saying these things. Yet the fact that Jesus was not recorded as physically uttering these words that Paul is giving in verses 12-40 really does not conflict with the orthodox doctrine of inspiration that 2 Tim 3:16 puts forth, for the term theopneustos in that passage, "God breathed", is not restricted only to those words of Jesus. Check the BAGD lexicon or any other lexicon to verify this point. If inspiration covered only what Jesus Himself said, then we would have a problem. But inspiration does not limit itself to what Jesus Himself said, and the Church has never had this restrictive a view in its history. This objection commits a straw man fallacy by equating the set of God-inspired writings with the set of sayings of Jesus, pointing out that Jesus did not utter the words in verses 12-40, and proclaiming that there is a contradiction.

Hmmm. Looks like a Bentley, drives like a Dodge.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahweh

[URL=http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html]

* Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.




What a beautiful piece of ammo!! We need to run this by at ' Rapture Ready'...

If David's descendants are going to number in the billions ( or more ), it is going to take thousands of years ( at least ) for this to happen.. Wouldn't that sort of interfere with the Rapture taking place anytime soon?
Or is this scripture not true?

Talk about Ammo, I think this is one of ehbowen's 16" armour piercing babys....

[triadboy]

Originally posted by sparklecat
1. 2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:12 states: To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
3. As Paul clearly states that he is giving this command, not God, then either this verse is not inspired by God or Paul is wrong.
4. If Paul is wrong, his statement that he, not the Lord, is commanding this, is false and therefore uninspired.
5. Therefore all Scripture is not inspired by God.


What do you think? Any problems or weak points?

The only way out I see is to state either that the 1 Corinthians verse isn't Scripture or God inspires error...

I like your thinking. 1 + 2 Timothy and Titus are forgeries written in the middle of the 2nd century to combat Gnosticism - so they do no good here.

Paul is speaking in chapter 7 about sex and stuff (eeewwww). He says if you are unmarried or a widow why not just stay like that - like me. But if you HAVE to have sex, then get married - because it's better to be married and have sex then burn in hell. Then in 1 Corinthian 7:12 he clearly makes a statement on his authority. So yes one could say he is clearly stepping out of the umbrella of God to make this statement. If your wife is non-believer, but still wants to stay with you - let her. However, xians will say all utterances are inspired by the Lord, whether you think so or not.


There is also:
1 Cor.7:25
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment...."

Paul obviously hates sex and the idea of people having sex (eeewwww). A virgin is a precious temple of the Lord with a holy mind and spirit. A married woman is concerned with 'gettin' down wit daddy' and this tarnishes her soul.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by triadboy





There is also:
1 Cor.7:25
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment...."




" Now God ( ...you do know who God is? ) doesn't have anything to say about this, but let me tell you what I think.... "

That's pretty heavy stuff..

[Mr Clingford]

3. As Paul clearly states that he is giving this command, not God, then either this verse is not inspired by God or Paul is wrong. This is where I think your argument falls down. Inspiration is not necessarily the same as authority; it all hinges on how you interprete 'inspiration'

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
This is where I think your argument falls down. Inspiration is not necessarily the same as authority; it all hinges on how you interprete 'inspiration'

Does it matter? Even should Paul have this authority, if even one passage is not inspired, then all Scripture is most definitely not inspired by God.


"Paul is saying the Lord did not directly say this"- bah. And how then would Paul phrase it if he wanted to say that the command was a personal, not inspired by God one?

AKA I'm going to reinterpret and not read what it really says because that would make my neat little doctrine fall apart and I'd have to learn to think...

[69dodge]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Hmmm. Looks like a Bentley, drives like a Dodge.Hey!

You got somethin' against Dodges?

:D

[frisian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Triadboy is the real authorative figure on the biblical stuff, but I would think one of the first blows against the devine inspiration of the bible is the assumption of a hypothetical supreme being in the first place... its a shaky premise.



Why?

Because it is subjective?

[frisian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Some have 2 Timothy 3:16 a little differently. Instead of "God-breathed", they have "given by inspiration of God".

I don't see how Paul giving the saying negates inspiration by God.

How are God breathed and inspiration identical?

Who claims them as such and how so?

[frisian]

Originally posted by c4ts


God can do irrational things that make no sense to us because he's all-powerful and all-knowing. Therefore it only looks like error.

But if anyone actually argues that, they're making all conversation about God into irrational nonsense, so you can just leave them to their babbling.

Or they seem irrational because you are looking for objective "truth" via a subjective self.

Have you obtained absolute awareness?

Are you aware of every variable that goes into your thought processes?

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Because its in Scripture- and if he's saying that its not inspired by God (not sure how else he could clearly state that), then all Scripture can't be inspired.


c4ts- Aye, indeed.

He says it is not God speaking via direct fiat.

Does he imply or assert that he is not led by the "Spirit" to proclaim?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Diogenes


What a beautiful piece of ammo!! We need to run this by at ' Rapture Ready'...

If David's descendants are going to number in the billions ( or more ), it is going to take thousands of years ( at least ) for this to happen.. Wouldn't that sort of interfere with the Rapture taking place anytime soon?
Or is this scripture not true?

Talk about Ammo, I think this is one of ehbowen's 16" armour piercing babys....


;)

14 generations having 5 kids each, would get you over a billion.

Them der are pretty long generations you have.

:p

[c4ts]

Originally posted by frisian


Or they seem irrational because you are looking for objective "truth" via a subjective self.

Have you obtained absolute awareness?

Are you aware of every variable that goes into your thought processes?

Since I am not absolutely aware, nor can any man ever be that way, anything spoken above or below what is considered rational will never make sense to me or any other human being.

[frisian]

Originally posted by c4ts


Since I am not absolutely aware, nor can any man ever be that way, anything spoken above or below what is considered rational will never make sense to me or any other human being.

Considered rational to you?

Or this simplified rationale that is based on not having absolute awareness?

So things outside one individual's logic cap do not exist?

[frisian]

Originally posted by c4ts


Since I am not absolutely aware, nor can any man ever be that way, anything spoken above or below what is considered rational will never make sense to me or any other human being.

So reduce down 8/16 to 1/2 because you don't see the 14 other parts? Or what they contain?

Ockham's Razor must be your pal.

[sparklecat]

And how exactly would Paul have said it if he wanted to get across that he was the one giving the command rather than God.

"And now I say to you (I, not the Lord, and not speaking under inspiration of the Spirit. This is just me. Don't add anything to it. God has no part in what comes next. And no, that doesn't mean that he just didn't say it directly, it means that its from my uninspired head alone)..."

Though I doubt that even that would be enough to get the point across for some people...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by frisian

How are God breathed and inspiration identical?


I don't exactly know the details. I went to a Christian website, one that had several different versions of the Bible, and looked up 2 Timothy 3:16 and got slightly different versions. The parts that differed were 'God breathed' and the bit about inspiration, so it stands to reason that they have the same intention.

[frisian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I don't exactly know the details. I went to a Christian website, one that had several different versions of the Bible, and looked up 2 Timothy 3:16 and got slightly different versions. The parts that differed were 'God breathed' and the bit about inspiration, so it stands to reason that they have the same intention. [/B]

Hmmm, you don't know the details.

They would seem important when attempting to reason.

Perhaps "God breathed" indicates statements that are declared as "I God say" and the like. While inspiration would be like someone listening to Jimi Hendrix records and being inspired to play guitar?

[sparklecat]

Or maybe they're both english translations of the same root word? One just being more of a paraphrase.

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Or maybe they're both english translations of the same root word? One just being more of a paraphrase.

Perhaps.

Much can get lost when translating.

Languages don't always "move" well from one to another.

[sparklecat]

Aye. That should be a new rule for anyone who wants to debate with me on the subject... know some of the language basics.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by frisian
Triadboy is the real authorative figure on the biblical stuff, but I would think one of the first blows against the devine inspiration of the bible is the assumption of a hypothetical supreme being in the first place... its a shaky premise.
------------------------------------------------------

Why?

Because it is subjective?
Absolutely not. The assumption of the existence of a supreme being is an example of an "objective premise".

The premise remains shaky because it favors the supernatural explanation before the "rational".

From Skepdic.com (http://www.skepdic.com/adhoc.html):
Finally, rejecting explanations that require belief in occult, supernatural or paranormal forces in favor of simpler and more plausible explanations is called applying Occam's razor. It is not the same as ad hoc hypothesizing. For example, let's say I catch you stealing a watch from a shop. You say you did not steal it. I ask you to empty your pockets. You agree and pull out a watch. I say, "Aha!, I was right. You stole the watch." You reply that you did not steal the watch, but you admit that it was not in your pocket when we went into the store. I ask you to explain how the watch got into your pocket and you say that you used telekinesis: you used your thoughts to transport the watch out of a glass case into your pocket. I ask you to repeat the act with another watch and you say "ok." Try as you will, however, you cannot make a watch magically appear in your pocket. You say that there is too much pressure on you to perform or that there are too many bad vibes in the air for you to work your powers. You have offered an ad hoc hypothesis to explain away what looks like a good refutation of your claim. My hypothesis that the watch is in your pocket because you stole it, is not an ad hoc hypothesis. I have chosen to believe a plausible explanation rather than an implausible one. Likewise, given the choice between believing that my headache went away of its own accord or that it went away because some nurse waved her hands over my hand while chanting a mantra, I will opt for the former every time.
When given a choice, I wouldnt see why anyone would favor devine inspiration as opposed to natural inspiration.

To go into a little more detail as to why the supernatural explanation really doesnt hold a candle to natural explanations, from Skepdic.com - Charles Tart (http://www.skepdic.com/tart.html):
Tart explains how he first got interested in the paranormal in the following story told at a talk he gave in Casper, Wyoming:

<blockquote>There was a time, years ago, when I was highly skeptical of any paranormal claims of any kind. One of the things that convinced me that there must be something to this is a strange experience that I personally went through. It was wartime. I was at Berkeley, California, and everybody was working overtime....the young lady who was my assistant at the time worked with me until very late this one night. She finally went home; I went home. Then the very next day she came in, all excited....She reported that during this night she had suddenly sat bolt upright in her bed, convinced that something terrible had happened. “I had a terrible sense of foreboding,” she said, but she did not know what had happened. “I immediately swung out of bed and went over to the window and looked outside to see if I could see anything that might have happened like an accident. I was just turning away from the window and suddenly the window shook violently. I couldn’t understand that. I went back to bed, woke up the next morning and listened to the radio.” A munitions ship at Port Chicago had exploded. It literally took Port Chicago off the map. It leveled the entire town and over 300 people were killed....She said she had sensed the moment when all these people were snuffed out in this mighty explosion. How would she have suddenly become terrified, jumped out of bed, gone to the window, and then - from 35 miles away, the shock wave had reached Berkeley and shook the window? (Randi 1992)</blockquote>

There is no need to perceive this event as paranormal, according to James Randi, who tape-recorded the story. A shock wave travels at different speeds through the ground and through the air. The difference over 35 miles would be about 8 seconds. Most likely the shaking earth woke up the young lady in a fright and 8 seconds later the window shook. She and Tart assumed that the explosion took place when the window shook, making her experience inexplicable by the known laws of physics. This explanation only makes sense, however, if one ignores the known laws of physics.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Absolutely not. The assumption of the existence of a supreme being is an example of an "objective premise".

The premise remains shaky because it favors the supernatural explanation before the "rational".

From Skepdic.com (http://www.skepdic.com/adhoc.html):

When given a choice, I wouldnt see why anyone would favor devine inspiration as opposed to natural inspiration.

To go into a little more detail as to why the supernatural explanation really doesnt hold a candle to natural explanations, from Skepdic.com - Charles Tart (http://www.skepdic.com/tart.html):


Why can't a premise favor a supernatural explanation before the "rational"?

I read the writings some one gave you, but I am not following why it MUST be.

[DarkPrimus]

The easier way to do this would be to point out that the Bible cannot be used to prove the Bible. (Circular reasoning.)

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by DarkPrimus
The easier way to do this would be to point out that the Bible cannot be used to prove the Bible. (Circular reasoning.)

Oh no, its not easier at all... lol

It doesn't work. I guarantee it.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by frisian
Why can't a premise favor a supernatural explanation before the "rational"?

I read the writings some one gave you, but I am not following why it MUST be.
If Charles Tart's story doesnt get it across as to why supernatural explanations are useless, I'll make the reasoning a little more clear...

To put it bluntly, the supernatural explanation effectively explains nothing.

There is nothing that would suggest anything can occur outside of "natural explanation". There is nothing supernatural that is said to exist which is demonstratably or verifiably true in a scientific environment (scientific enviroments are favored for bias-free accuracy). While there is no evidence against the existence of the supernatural (I honestly have no idea how to go about finding empirical evidence - much less proof- to demonstrate the non-existence of anything), dont fool yourself into believing "hey, it could be possible".

That is why the premise for an explanation must be rational.

[calladus]

Originally posted by frisian


How are God breathed and inspiration identical?

Who claims them as such and how so? Look up the etymology of the words spirit, inspire, and breath.

[calladus]

Originally posted by frisian


Why can't a premise favor a supernatural explanation before the "rational"?

EXCELLENT IDEA! Wow! That would make school so much easier, wouldn't it?

Why do things fall down? Gravity? NO! Elves with magic wands make things fall down! Why does fire burn? Chemical combustion? NO, it's those dang Elves again! Where does the sun go at night? The Elves hide it! Why do airplanes fly? Nothing to do with aerodynamics - we just ask for special dispensation from the Elves to not point their gravity wand at us!

Next time you fly on an airplane, make sure you make an offering to the Elves, or they may get angry and let you drop!

The reason why you don't seek supernatural causes first is because there is a whole laundry list of supernatural causes to pick from, most of which are mutually exclusive. I chose Elves, you might choose God. Someone else might choose invisible pink unicorns. We could all make our premise very hard (or even impossible) to disprove. However, each of us could offer our own special proof. (Joe Schmoe didn't make an offering to the Airplane Elf, and his plane crashed! SEE? PROOF!)

But along comes someone with a rational explanation, and offers the means to test that explanation. Testing it results in confirmation that his explanation is correct.

This is the beginning of science. This is where we eventually end up in the long run. So why not start there first?

Or just make an offering to the Airplane Elf. He accepts Paypal. I'll be glad to take the offering on his behalf.

[Ipecac]

Sparklecat,

True believers cannot be reasoned with when it comes to biblical inerrancy.

My brother is a true believer who believes in this. We recently discussed the issue. I thought I'd start with a couple of basic New Testament inconsistencies. (Please forgive the lack of a reference cite. I don't have time to dig them up right now.)

The gospels disagree about the names of the disciples. There are two lists that positively do not match. My brother made the argument that the inconsistency was due to one listing the real name of the disciple, the other listing a "nickname". Needless to say, there's no evidence of this.

The other was to point out two very different genealogies of Jesus from David through Joseph. These two genealogies have only a few names in common and even list a different number of generations. His explanation was that one of the genealogies was of Mary, despite that it clearly does not include Mary.

Once they reach true believer status, you just can't win with reason and logic.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by frisian

Hmmm, you don't know the details.


Well sure; I didn't do the translation/transliteration, and couldn't find anything that specifically addressed it.


They would seem important when attempting to reason.


One is able to reason without knowing 100% of the details. You have heard of inference, right?


Perhaps "God breathed" indicates statements that are declared as "I God say" and the like. While inspiration would be like someone listening to Jimi Hendrix records and being inspired to play guitar?

The two 2 Timothy 3:16 passages only differed in that one spot, so it stands to reason that the different combination of words mean the same thing in that instance.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

The two 2 Timothy 3:16 passages only differed in that one spot, so it stands to reason that the different combination of words mean the same thing in that instance.

Why would any Xian care what it says - it wasn't written by Paul. It is a forgery written in the middle of the 2nd century.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by sparklecat
1. 2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
1 Corinthians starts "Paul, ..., unto the church of God which is at Corinth, ..."

2 Timothy starts "Paul, ..., To Timothy, ..."

At the time Paul wrote this these letters they were not scripture. Paul's letters are later including in scripture and suddenly they become self referential. The Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways.

Walt

[sparklecat]

Ah, I see. They weren't Scripture then, but they became Scripture later. So Scripture includes things not of God, but merely written by man then.

[frisian]

Originally posted by calladus

EXCELLENT IDEA! Wow! That would make school so much easier, wouldn't it?

Why do things fall down? Gravity? NO! Elves with magic wands make things fall down! Why does fire burn? Chemical combustion? NO, it's those dang Elves again! Where does the sun go at night? The Elves hide it! Why do airplanes fly? Nothing to do with aerodynamics - we just ask for special dispensation from the Elves to not point their gravity wand at us!

Next time you fly on an airplane, make sure you make an offering to the Elves, or they may get angry and let you drop!

The reason why you don't seek supernatural causes first is because there is a whole laundry list of supernatural causes to pick from, most of which are mutually exclusive. I chose Elves, you might choose God. Someone else might choose invisible pink unicorns. We could all make our premise very hard (or even impossible) to disprove. However, each of us could offer our own special proof. (Joe Schmoe didn't make an offering to the Airplane Elf, and his plane crashed! SEE? PROOF!)

But along comes someone with a rational explanation, and offers the means to test that explanation. Testing it results in confirmation that his explanation is correct.

This is the beginning of science. This is where we eventually end up in the long run. So why not start there first?

Or just make an offering to the Airplane Elf. He accepts Paypal. I'll be glad to take the offering on his behalf.

School?

I wasn't aware I was in the Science area of the boards.

Why only be interested in explanations that work for the majority and are the simplest?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

If Charles Tart's story doesnt get it across as to why supernatural explanations are useless, I'll make the reasoning a little more clear...

To put it bluntly, the supernatural explanation effectively explains nothing.

There is nothing that would suggest anything can occur outside of "natural explanation". There is nothing supernatural that is said to exist which is demonstratably or verifiably true in a scientific environment (scientific enviroments are favored for bias-free accuracy). While there is no evidence against the existence of the supernatural (I honestly have no idea how to go about finding empirical evidence - much less proof- to demonstrate the non-existence of anything), dont fool yourself into believing "hey, it could be possible".

That is why the premise for an explanation must be rational.

It explains nothing because it can't apply to all beings?

So take out as many variables as one can be aware of, come to a conclusion, and cease to think.

What does this have to do with science?

Who said we are trying to accomplish the same thing?

[frisian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi




One is able to reason without knowing 100% of the details. You have heard of inference, right?



Certainly, I am not that impressed with inference though.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by frisian
It explains nothing because it can't apply to all beings?
I'm not sure where I implied that, but that is not the point I was trying to get across.

If it helps at all, ask yourself any question, then say outloud "Obviously, pixies!". First, is your answer the correct answer (does it have valid proof to support it)? Second, are you satisfied with the answer? Third, is the "pixie" explanation the only way to describe and answer the question?

Supernatural explanations do not work because there is no situation that has ever occurred that was legitimately supernatural in origin. (Keep in mind, there are such things as "rational" explanations which are not correct... for instance, aliens are not supernatural, but that doesnt make the accuracy - much less credibility - of using "aliens stole my car keys, thats why I cant find them" any more valid...)

Who said we are trying to accomplish the same thing?
If you claim the bible is devinely inspired, I claim it is not, I would think both of us would be trying to establish which claim is true.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I'm not sure where I implied that, but that is not the point I was trying to get across.

If it helps at all, ask yourself any question, then say outloud "Obviously, pixies!". First, is your answer the correct answer (does it have valid proof to support it)? Second, are you satisfied with the answer? Third, is the "pixie" explanation the only way to describe and answer the question?

Supernatural explanations do not work because there is no situation that has ever occurred that was legitimately supernatural in origin. (Keep in mind, there are such things as "rational" explanations which are not correct... for instance, aliens are not supernatural, but that doesnt make the accuracy - much less credibility - of using "aliens stole my car keys, thats why I cant find them" any more valid...)


If you claim the bible is devinely inspired, I claim it is not, I would think both of us would be trying to establish which claim is true.


Why would I answer pixies to every question? Is someone inferring that God is the answer to every question? Who does that?

Define valid proof.

What goes into being satisfied with an answer?

I didn't claim anything I don't believe.

Certainly without the presupposition that there is a God is necessary to say the Bible is inspired. That was inferred in the OP.

So what is with all the science analogies? Are we building a plane?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by frisian


Certainly, I am not that impressed with inference though.

Why are you not that impressed with inference though?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by frisian
Why would I answer pixies to every question? Is someone inferring that God is the answer to every question? Who does that?
I was describing how using a supernatural premise to describe or explain things really fails to accomplish anything.

Define valid proof.
In terms of proof derived from physical evidence:

A logically connected series of scientifically acceptable (preferably material) evidences establish a definite conclusion.

(Technical enough?)

What goes into being satisfied with an answer?

I didn't claim anything I don't believe.
Oops! I got the impression you were trying to establish that the bible is in fact devinely inspired. (I'm still not entirely clear...)

So what is with all the science analogies? Are we building a plane?
The science analogies are perfectly valid, they get the point across.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Yahweh
A logically connected series of scientifically acceptable (preferably material) evidences establish a definite conclusion.I find the term "definite" perhaps stifling, since it kind of doesn't help with conductive arguments. Perhaps a more than likely conclusion, or most probable conclusion.

Walt

[calladus]

Originally posted by frisian
Why only be interested in explanations that work for the majority and are the simplest?

Your kidding, right? What makes you think that a scientific solution is simple? It may be mathematically elegant, and fit Occam's razor, but it can be counter- intuitive, which is not something that is simple to teach.

Simple solutions are not always correct (especially in quantum physics).

[calladus]

Originally posted by frisian
Why would I answer pixies to every question? Is someone inferring that God is the answer to every question? Who does that?

Define valid proof.

What goes into being satisfied with an answer?

I didn't claim anything I don't believe.

Certainly without the presupposition that there is a God is necessary to say the Bible is inspired. That was inferred in the OP.

So what is with all the science analogies? Are we building a plane?

frisian, in this thread all you have done is question.

Since this is the first time I've seen you, I'm really curious. Just what is it that you do believe? From your questions I take it you are not impressed with science. I would like to know if that is true, and if so, what you would replace science with?

Give me something besides questions - you're starting to sound like a Eliza program (http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza-cgi-bin/eliza_script)

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by calladus
frisian, in this thread all you have done is question.


lol... he's known for doing so

Though occasionally he can come out with some good thoughts ;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
I find the term "definite" perhaps stifling, since it kind of doesn't help with conductive arguments. Perhaps a more than likely conclusion, or most probable conclusion.

Walt
I agree.

Unless someone can find a more appropriate defintion, I keep my definition of "valid proof" at:
A logically connected series of scientifically acceptable (preferably material) evidences establish a most likely conclusion.

(I would have made the edit in the original post, but unfortunately I cant make edits 6 hours after posting.)

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Yahweh
..., I keep my definition of "valid proof" The again:Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them.As found in my favorire site on Proof (http://www.carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm)

[frisian]

Originally posted by calladus


frisian, in this thread all you have done is question.

Since this is the first time I've seen you, I'm really curious. Just what is it that you do believe? From your questions I take it you are not impressed with science. I would like to know if that is true, and if so, what you would replace science with?

Give me something besides questions - you're starting to sound like a Eliza program (http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza-cgi-bin/eliza_script)

Well I don't have everything figured out yet, I could give a list of many things I am uncertain about.

It seemed you knew something, thus I questioned to get answers.

Beliefs are similiar to opinions, no? They are quite relative and subjective.

I believe the Chicago Cubs will win the World Series some time.

Where has that gotten us?

I am not impressed with science in relation to attempting to understand something that could be supernatural. Use the natural to understand or predict the supernatural? Sorry, not following that thinking yet.

I am not replacing or suggesting replacing anything? Science, I believe, serves its purpose well in some instances and for certain areas of accomplishment.

[frisian]

Originally posted by calladus


Your kidding, right? What makes you think that a scientific solution is simple? It may be mathematically elegant, and fit Occam's razor, but it can be counter- intuitive, which is not something that is simple to teach.

Simple solutions are not always correct (especially in quantum physics).

I never mentioned that a scientific solution is simple.

As far as Ockham's Razor, for pratical purposes it works well. Still not following how it reaches conclusions in regards to discussions revolving around supernatural entities.

Ah, we agree for now in terms of simple solutions are not always correct. Then why do some quit thinking or pursuing in relation to supernatural entities?

[frisian]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
The again:Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them.As found in my favorire site on Proof (http://www.carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm)

Precisely.

[frisian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Why are you not that impressed with inference though?

It is incomplete.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by frisian


It is incomplete.

Yes, many things are incomplete, but that doesn't equate with inferior, bad, or worthless.

I'd like to find the method of knowledge that is complete. :)

[frisian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Yes, many things are incomplete, but that doesn't equate with inferior, bad, or worthless.

I'd like to find the method of knowledge that is complete. :)

I don't recall claiming anything incomplete as bad or worthless. I do find incompletes concepts inferior to complete ones however.

I would also like to find that, thus the reason I don't stop and quit, or care to merely accept incomplete methods.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

As far as Ockham's Razor, for pratical purposes it works well. Still not following how it reaches conclusions in regards to discussions revolving around supernatural entities.

Occam's Razor doesn't reach conclusions about the supernatural. The Razor is used to temporarily eliminate certain unlikely possibilities to better focus on the remaining possibilities which have been deemed more likely to be correct. More specifically, possibilities which require the invention of something that has yet to be theorized or possibilities which require a further layer of investigation should be eliminated from the research until the more simple and likely possibilities have been explored. Should they turn out to be incorrect, the previously eliminated possibilities will be reevaluated.

For example, say I'm eating cookies while watching TV on Christmas Eve. After eating my fill, I leave the remaining cookie box on the table next to my chair, forgetting about them when I go to bed. The next morning, I find the cookies have disappeared!

Popular folklore would insist that Santa Clause had been in my livingroom some time between my going to sleep and my awakening.

On the other hand, I have a roommate who frequently kills the bottom of the cookie boxes in my absense.

I also have two cats who are notorious cookie bandits, especially in the dark when nobody is around to yell at them.

Here I have three theories to work with. Which one should I pursue first?

Occam's Razor would temporarily eliminate the first theory, since Santa Clause is not currently accepted as an actual entity. To examin the Santa theory, I would first have to investigate and prove (or disprove) Santa's existance. Since this path would be far more difficult to explore than the two other theories, we'll simply set that one aside for now.

The second theory is worth exploring, since it is relatively easy to investigate quickly. I knock on my roommate's bedroom and discover he isn't home. I remember that he is in California for the holidays, and I spoke to him eight hours ago when he called from there to remind me to feed the cats.

Knowing that it is highly unlikely that he would have travelled that distance in that amount of time, Occam's Razor would again slice that theory from the table. It would require extreme circumstances for this theory to be true, so we'll instead move on to theory number three.

Note that we haven't ruled the first two theories out; we've simply set them aside as not yet worth pursuing. There is still one more theory, and this theory is quite simple to investigate. It is far better to quickly investigate this third theory, (which can be completed in seconds), than to waste time by first working on the two theories that we already know are far less likely.

Theory number three, the cats. Remembering that I hadn't fed the cats the night before, I peek behind the table. Not surprisingly, the box is on the floor. Upside down and surrounded by scattered crumbs, the box rests next to a sleeping cat who still has a cookie crumb in his whisker.

At this point, I think it's safe to conclude that the cat ate my cookies. Had I instead decided to pursue the Santa Clause theory, I would still be quite far from finding out where my cookies went. Thanks to Occam's Razor, I went with the most likely theory first, and saved myself centuries of investigation.

Here's where the Razor affects supernatural theories...

For every event that has been investigated, there can be mundane theories or there can be supernatural theories. In every case, the supernatural has been shown as far less likely to be the true theory and far more difficult to investigate. So, the mundane theory is the first one to be investigated. So far, no case has required the supernatural theory to be reevaluated.

Simply looking back and seeing that the supernatural has yet to be shown as a) existing and b) the correct theory, we can easily eliminate the supernatural theories from future investigations. This doesn't say anything about the supernatural other than it has yet to be shown as necessary to explain anything. The Razor rule says nothing about the supernatural itself, only that supernatural theories are less likely and should not be the first on the list to evaluate.

This example only attempts to give a layman's explaination on the function of the Razor. For more solid explainations on the Razor and the man behind the name, check out

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

Or do a websearch.

[frisian]

Thanks.

I am aware of what Ockham's Razor "does".

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist
Here's where the Razor affects supernatural theories... Unless and until you can devise a pertinent and meaningful definition of simplicity, or give reasons why concepts of parsimony would or could map to a purported supernatural realm, Occam's Razor is irrelevant. Rather, ...In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Unless and until you can devise a pertinent and meaningful definition of simplicity, or give reasons why concepts of parsimony would or could map to a purported supernatural realm, Occam's Razor is irrelevant.

In the words of C.S. Lewis... its easy to be simple when you've got no facts to deal with.

Paraphrased words at least.

In regards to people saying Christianity should be simpler because simplicity is beautiful, blah blah blah...

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by sparklecat
..., blah blah blah... Your point?

[sparklecat]

Oh, no real point. Just agreeing with the bit I quoted.

What, you expected originality? :p

[frisian]

"In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:
You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.
This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation."

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler

If the natural and supernatural "collide" I would think that indeed some can be known.

Nice broad, vague assertions... theistic believers. So that encompasses all of them?

Seems to me it is merely not understanding the variables. Indeed it is an attitude of surrender.

[frisian]

Perhaps not having an understanding of the OP in this thread, could complicate things.

It is fairly self evident so I won't bother merely copying and pasting.

[Loki]

sparklecat,

Regarding the original point, it seems that Walt has covered it well - Paul is stating that the words he will deliver are "his", and not simply a retelling of words spoken by Jesus. That doesn't mean, however, that Paul's thoughts are not 'inspired'. In fact, it kind of works in reverse - the only reason Paul's letters are in the bible is because they were examined by the early church and found to be 'inspired'. If they'd failed that test, then the letters would have been omitted.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by frisian
I do find incompletes concepts inferior to complete ones however.

Please name a concept that is complete, and why you think it is complete.

[frisian]

Hmmm, not any I know of or have found.

[T'ai Chi]

And that is why inference is essential I think. :)

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by frisian
If the natural and supernatural "collide" I would think that indeed some can be known.
Nice straw man -- "collide" no less. :D You really need to get over yourself.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Or maybe they're both english translations of the same root word? One just being more of a paraphrase.

Sparkle, the blueletterbible linked verses all have a button link for the Strongs number of each word in the verse.

- edited to add (which I now know you know from the link to Revelation thread) :D

[frisian]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

Nice straw man -- "collide" no less. :D You really need to get over yourself.

Heh.

Get over myself? Hell you haven't even met me yet.

Straw man? Perhaps just bad poetry.

[frisian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
And that is why inference is essential I think. :)

For the universal mind?

Were you doing time?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by frisian

For the universal mind?

Were you doing time?

Yes, I was doing time; I was in graduate school.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by frisian
14 generations having 5 kids each, would get you over a billion.That's 5 kids per person. Meaning 10 kids per couple. And nobody can get sick and die before they have their 10 kids.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by frisian
So reduce down 8/16 to 1/2 because you don't see the 14 other parts?Next time I'm in the pizza shop, I'll remember to order four slices instead of half a pie (i.e., 4/8 instead of 1/2), so I don't miss out on those 6 other parts.

What 6 other parts, you ask?

Aha . . . :)

[frisian]

Originally posted by 69dodge
That's 5 kids per person. Meaning 10 kids per couple. And nobody can get sick and die before they have their 10 kids.

Hmmm, yes if one descendant marries another descendant. Stretch it out to 28 generations then or 42....

[frisian]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Next time I'm in the pizza shop, I'll remember to order four slices instead of half a pie (i.e., 4/8 instead of 1/2), so I don't miss out on those 6 other parts.

What 6 other parts, you ask?

Aha . . . :)

Heh.

You are correct. That was crazy math I did.

4/8 is still different than 1/2 though.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by frisian
;)

14 generations having 5 kids each, would get you over a billion.

Them der are pretty long generations you have.

:p
My results...
Generation 1:
2 people (or 1 couples), they have a total of 5 kids.
Total people alive: 7

Generation 2:
2 people have died this generation.
5 people (or 2 couples), they have a total of 10 kids.
Total people alive: 15

Generation 3:
5 people have died this generation.
10 people (or 5 couples), they have a total of 25 kids.
Total people alive: 35

Generation 4:
10 people have died this generation.
25 people (or 12 couples), they have a total of 60 kids.
Total people alive: 85

Generation 5:
25 people have died this generation.
60 people (or 30 couples), they have a total of 150 kids.
Total people alive: 210

Generation 6:
60 people have died this generation.
150 people (or 75 couples), they have a total of 375 kids.
Total people alive: 525

Generation 7:
150 people have died this generation.
375 people (or 187 couples), they have a total of 935 kids.
Total people alive: 1310

Generation 8:
375 people have died this generation.
935 people (or 467 couples), they have a total of 2335 kids.
Total people alive: 3270

Generation 9:
935 people have died this generation.
2335 people (or 1167 couples), they have a total of 5835 kids.
Total people alive: 8170

Generation 10:
2335 people have died this generation.
5835 people (or 2917 couples), they have a total of 14585 kids.
Total people alive: 20420

Generation 11:
5835 people have died this generation.
14585 people (or 7292 couples), they have a total of 36460 kids.
Total people alive: 51045

Generation 12:
14585 people have died this generation.
36460 people (or 18230 couples), they have a total of 91150 kids.
Total people alive: 127610

Generation 13:
36460 people have died this generation.
91150 people (or 45575 couples), they have a total of 227875 kids.
Total people alive: 319025

Generation 14:
91150 people have died this generation.
227875 people (or 113937 couples), they have a total of 569685 kids.
Total people alive: 797560


Total number of people who ever live: 949487

With your numbers, it doesnt look like anymore than about 800,000 people can arise from 14 generations.

Those numbers were derived by assuming maximum amount of inbreeding, assumption that no more than 2 people (1 couple) produced 5 children per generation, once a couple is formed they stay together forever, ideal distribution of males and females, and assumption that no generation could live for more than one generatio for these numbers to work. Even by tweeking the number of original people, number of generations a person could survive, there is no realistic way your are going to get 1 billion people in 14 generations (about 1000 years if you assume each generation lasts ~70 years). Even when you dont factor in people who die, you get a population of about 73.4 million (or more precisely, 73449852).

Here is the code:
Option Explicit
Dim iGenerations As Double
Dim iTotalGenerations As Double
Dim lNumPeople As Double
Dim lNumPeopleLast As Double
Dim lOffspring As Double
Dim lDied As Double
Dim lTotalPeopleEva As Double
Dim iPeopleToMakeCouple As Double
Dim iOffspringPerCouple As Double
Dim bEnableKill As Boolean

Private Sub CommandButton1_Click()
'##########################
'Tweek these for testing purposes

iTotalGenerations = 14
lNumPeople = 2
iPeopleToMakeCouple = 2
iOffspringPerCouple = 5
bEnableKill = True
'##########################

lTotalPeopleEva = lNumPeople
For iGenerations = 1 To iTotalGenerations

TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & "Generation " & iGenerations & ":" & vbCrLf

If iGenerations <> 1 And bEnableKill = True Then
If bEnableKill = True Then
Call KillPeople
End If

TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & _
lDied & " people have died this generation." & vbCrLf
End If

TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & _
lNumPeople & " people (or " & Fix(lNumPeople / iPeopleToMakeCouple) & _
" couples), they have a total of " & GetOffspring(lNumPeople) & _
" kids." & vbCrLf

lNumPeople = lOffspring + lNumPeople
lTotalPeopleEva = lTotalPeopleEva + lOffspring

TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & _
"Total people alive: " & lNumPeople


TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & vbCrLf & vbCrLf
Next iGenerations

TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & vbCrLf & "Total number of people who ever live: " & lTotalPeopleEva
End Sub

Private Function GetOffspring(ByVal I As Long)
lNumPeopleLast = lNumPeople

lOffspring = Fix(I / iPeopleToMakeCouple) * iOffspringPerCouple

GetOffspring = lOffspring
End Function

Private Function KillPeople()
lDied = lNumPeopleLast
lNumPeople = lNumPeople - lDied
End Function

The code is in Visual Basic, I consider it some of my most sloppily written stuff ever :p. If anyone feels like testing the code, I made all the variables tweekable.

Edit to add: I changed variable bEnableKill from "False" to "True". Its a small change, but that is the original code that you need to use to reproduce the results above.

[frisian]

Hmmm.

Thanks Yahweh.

I did my numbers in my head only twice. Perhaps I missed something.

Tomorrow I will show how I came up with my number, and take a look at "your" code.

From a quick look, it seems I didn't think of some variables.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by frisian
4/8 is still different than 1/2 though.In what way do you think they differ? For example, which do you think is larger?

I think they're identical.

(The notation "4/8" obviously differs from the notation "1/2", but both notations refer to the same number. )

[frisian]

Originally posted by 69dodge
In what way do you think they differ? For example, which do you think is larger?

I think they're identical.

(The notation "4/8" obviously differs from the notation "1/2", but both notations refer to the same number. )

Lol. I don't think either is larger.

My point being, 4/8 indicates 4 of 8 parts. 1/2 indicates 1 of 2 parts. No? That is how they differ.

I understand that 1 of 2 is half, much like 4 of 8 is half. But they are half of different totals.

Perhaps I am not explaining well.

[frisian]

Ok, for one thing I don't believe number currently alive is the issue. But I could be wrong.

Here is how I came up with my number.

David and his descendants. Each descendant having 5 children that also have children.

Generation 1 - 5 children
Generation 2 - 25 grandchildren
Generation 3 - 125 great-grandchildren
Generation 4 - 725 great-great grandchildren
Generation 5 - 3625 ggg grandchildren
Generation 6 - 18125 gggg grandchildren
Generation 7 - 90625 ggggg grandchildren
Generation 8 - 453125 gggggg grandchildren
Generation 9 - 2265625 ggggggg grandchildren
Generation 10 - 11328125 gggggggg grandchildren
Generation 11 - 56640625 ggggggggg grandchildren
Generation 12 - 283203125 gggggggggg grandchildren
Generation 13 - 1416015625 ggggggggggg grandchildren

So there you have over a billion descendants and that isn't even adding all of the numbers above. I know, not exact "math", I am merely asserting it is possible.

If you want to call a generation 70 years, which I will accept (even though I THINK it is inaccurate) then multiply by 13 you get 910 years.

David lived much longer ago than that.

Want to say they have only 2 children each?

Generation 1 - 2 children
Generation 2 - 4 children
Generation 3 - 8 children
Generation 4 - 16 children
Generation 5 - 32 children
Generation 6 - 64 children
Generation 7 - 128 children
Generation 8 - 256 children
Generation 9 - 512 children
Generation 10 - 1024 children
Generation 11 - 2048 children
Generation 12 - 4096 children
Generation 13 - 8192 children
Generation 14 - 16384 children
Generation 15 - 32768 children
Generation 16 - 65536 children
Generation 17 - 131072 children
Generation 18 - 262144 children
Generation 19 - 524288 children
Generation 20 - 1048576 children
Generation 21 - 2097152 children
Generation 22 - 4194304 children
Generation 23 - 8388608 children
Generation 24 - 16777216 children
Generation 25 - 33554432 children
Generation 26 - 67108864 children
Generation 27 - 134217728 children
Generation 28 - 268435456 children
Generation 29 - 536870912 children
Generation 30 - 1073741824 children

Over a billion. 30 generations times 70 years = 2100 years, still not back to David.


I agree this is highly speculative as we don't have a full genealogical chart. However to say impossible as was first asserted...I think not.


Hmmm... found this after the fact.

http://www.maa.org/features/mathchat/mathchat_06_14_96.html

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by frisian



;)

14 generations having 5 kids each, would get you over a billion.

Them der are pretty long generations you have.

:p

O.K., that's one( billion ). Are you aware of how many stars there are, or how many grains of sand there are in the sea..

I think a billion might be a little short..

Actually, we could end the discussion by suggesting that God was exagerating here, but that wouldn't be very Godly, now would it?


I hope Yahweh didn't waste too much time with all the ' Visual Basic ', and etc...

[frisian]

Originally posted by Diogenes


O.K., that's one( billion ). Are you aware of how many stars there are, or how many grains of sand there are in the sea..

I think a billion might be a little short..

Actually, we could end the discussion by suggesting that God was exagerating here, but that wouldn't be very Godly, now would it?


I hope Yahweh didn't waste too much time with all the ' Visual Basic ', and etc...

Indeed, I think the analogy wasn't an exact number biblically. Not sure how that deems it ungodly though.

Hmmm, found another angle to my genealogical quests however.

Off I go to study.

:p

[frisian]

"Hoogland entertained no doubts about the Bible’s essential veracity. He held the Bible to be inspired by the Holy Spirit; he regarded its teachings as absolutely authoritative; and he accepted its deliverances as the church’s only rule of faith and practice. But he did not think the Bible was inerrant - or infallible in every part and particle. Not only does the Bible not claim infallibility for itself, it exhibits on its face the marks of human frailty. Found in it are faulty grammatical constructions, stylistic infelicities, scientific misconceptions, anachronistic geographical references, historical inaccuracies, discrepant accounts, and other such things, and for this reason the whole ought not to be called infallible. Is the Bible then not a divinely inspired book? Of course it is, but inspiration does not of itself entail infallibility. Of this the existing text is proof. A conservative tradition contends that an inspired book must be a blameless book, a thoroughly sanitized book, a book inerrant in every detail and with respect to every dimension. It argues from the perfection of the Spirit to the perfection of the Scriptures; as God is so is the Bible. However, to discover what inspiration really means, one must start from the other end, from a careful scrutiny of the text. When this is done it will become evident that the Holy Spirit in enlightening and guiding the biblical writers was out to proclaim and preserve the Message, but was not concerned to suppress every deficiency or short-coming of the writers, or to lift them at every juncture above the cultural level of their day. And let this not bother us; our reliance on and commitment to the Word is not by this put in jeopardy -- "what sense does it make to say that our faith must necessarily falter and disintegrate if we admit that the Holy Spirit not only did not choose to reveal an accurate astronomy, but also allowed the inspired writers to use grammar in their own inaccurate way, and possible misstate a few historical facts?"

http://stobfamily.com/SumUp22.html

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by frisian
Ok, for one thing I don't believe number currently alive is the issue. But I could be wrong.

Here is how I came up with my number.

David and his descendants. Each descendant having 5 children that also have children.

Generation 1 - 5 children
Generation 2 - 25 grandchildren
Generation 3 - 125 great-grandchildren
Generation 4 - 725 great-great grandchildren
Generation 5 - 3625 ggg grandchildren
Generation 6 - 18125 gggg grandchildren
Generation 7 - 90625 ggggg grandchildren
Generation 8 - 453125 gggggg grandchildren
Generation 9 - 2265625 ggggggg grandchildren
Generation 10 - 11328125 gggggggg grandchildren
Generation 11 - 56640625 ggggggggg grandchildren
Generation 12 - 283203125 gggggggggg grandchildren
Generation 13 - 1416015625 ggggggggggg grandchildren

So there you have over a billion descendants and that isn't even adding all of the numbers above. I know, not exact "math", I am merely asserting it is possible.
Your math is a little off.

Your example is closer to the way a bacteria would reproduce. Say 1 bacteria produces 5 copies of itself and never produces anymore. Those 5 copies each produces 5 more copies... and so on. (Yes, I know bacteria reproduce by splitting in two... but just imagine a hypothetical bacteria that split into 5...)

However, it takes 2 humans to produce 5 humans. And to get those 2 humans, you couldnt gather from outside the family tree (there isnt a decent supply as it is), you have to resort to inbreeding. Keep in the mind the death ratio that occurs naturally (i.e. a recursive function).

If you want to call a generation 70 years, which I will accept (even though I THINK it is inaccurate) then multiply by 13 you get 910 years.

David lived much longer ago than that.[/b]
From AnsweringGenesis - Living for 900 years (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4082.asp):
However, not even the most avid enthusiast for healthy eating would suggest that, by simply changing our diet, we could live for 950 years today. Perhaps some of these other factors are the reason for the continuing decline, lasting for centuries. Isaac lived to 180, Moses 120, King David only 71 years.

Over a billion. 30 generations times 70 years = 2100 years, still not back to David.
Premature death: The Global Deathtoll (http://death.monstrous.com/the_global_deathtoll.htm), just under 225,794,000.

From The Day Of 6 Billion (http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/news.htm):
The arrival of a new child is not in itself big international news, since three are born every second

From Stanford - A Solution To The Doctor's Dilemma (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/docdilsol.html):
Approximately 60,000,000 people under seventy die each year, i.e. two people die each second.

From Central Statistics Office (http://www.cso.ie/pressreleases/prelcen02vol3.html):
The average number of children per family has fallen from 2.2 in 1981 to 1.6 in 2002.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by frisian
"Hoogland entertained no doubts about the Bible’s essential veracity. He held the Bible to be inspired by the Holy Spirit; he regarded its teachings as absolutely authoritative; and he accepted its deliverances as the church’s only rule of faith and practice. But he did not think the Bible was inerrant - or infallible in every part and particle. Not only does the Bible not claim infallibility for itself, it exhibits on its face the marks of human frailty. Found in it are faulty grammatical constructions, stylistic infelicities, scientific misconceptions, anachronistic geographical references, historical inaccuracies, discrepant accounts, and other such things, and for this reason the whole ought not to be called infallible. Is the Bible then not a divinely inspired book? Of course it is, but inspiration does not of itself entail infallibility. Of this the existing text is proof. A conservative tradition contends that an inspired book must be a blameless book, a thoroughly sanitized book, a book inerrant in every detail and with respect to every dimension. It argues from the perfection of the Spirit to the perfection of the Scriptures; as God is so is the Bible. However, to discover what inspiration really means, one must start from the other end, from a careful scrutiny of the text. When this is done it will become evident that the Holy Spirit in enlightening and guiding the biblical writers was out to proclaim and preserve the Message, but was not concerned to suppress every deficiency or short-coming of the writers, or to lift them at every juncture above the cultural level of their day. And let this not bother us; our reliance on and commitment to the Word is not by this put in jeopardy -- "what sense does it make to say that our faith must necessarily falter and disintegrate if we admit that the Holy Spirit not only did not choose to reveal an accurate astronomy, but also allowed the inspired writers to use grammar in their own inaccurate way, and possible misstate a few historical facts?"

http://stobfamily.com/SumUp22.html
153 Conflicts with Science and History (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html).

173 Prophecies That Never Quite Happened (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html).

773 Conflicts With Logic And Other General Absurdities (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm).

1112 Contradictions (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html).

I'd like the author to explain to me why he prefers the Bible over all other equally valid Non-Christian Scriptures and dismisses all other Gods from all other 6,500 religions (http://www.biblehelp.org/relig.htm).

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by frisian
Off I go to study. It would be wise to include the study of Minimum Viable Population and the impact of demographic, ecological, and genetic stochasticity. The real world is more nuanced than the times tables.

[frisian]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
It would be wise to include the study of Minimum Viable Population and the impact of demographic, ecological, and genetic stochasticity. The real world is more nuanced than the times tables.


Thanks, if you are being serious. I had found some studies online, but I kept getting links to links.

Now that I have seen how wrong about my assertions numerically were, I am intrigued even more so.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

153 Conflicts with Science and History (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html).

173 Prophecies That Never Quite Happened (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html).

773 Conflicts With Logic And Other General Absurdities (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm).

1112 Contradictions (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html).

I'd like the author to explain to me why he prefers the Bible over all other equally valid Non-Christian Scriptures and dismisses all other Gods from all other 6,500 religions (http://www.biblehelp.org/relig.htm).

Well he is dead for one thing.

Likely because of subjective experience and family tradition?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by frisian


Well he is dead for one thing.

Likely because of subjective experience and family tradition?

Come now, give the guy a little credit... doesn;t have to be all subjectivity and tradition.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by calladus


If you create a good argument that proves the bible's inaccuracys, contradictions, or proof against god, then you will be labeled as either hateful or will be dismissed as an atheist kook by true believers.
You lose.

The only "true believers" that are threatened by the Bible's "inaccuracy's, contradictions...." are fundamentalists. If you're not a fundamentalist, then the Bible's failings are easily understood: it's a collection of letters, songs, poems and documents written by fallible human beings, bound together in a single volume by another group of fallible human beings, to be used by *other* fallible human beings as one of many tools on their own spiritual journey.

Sparkle: If you're not interested in a Judeo-Christian spiritual journey (whatever that might mean to you) then you can disregard the Bible. Unless, of course, you are student of history, in which case it can be used to gain a glimmer of ancient cultural traditions, among other things. I think you are bound to be disappointed if you think using logic will somehow enlighten a fundamentalist.

Tim

[sparklecat]

Oh, but I'm quite interested in the whole Judeo-Christian thing :)

Though I also love history and am a student who does take some classes in it... ancient near east especially.

And I'm holding out hope that if its logical enough, they just might listen.

Justine

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Come now, give the guy a little credit... doesn;t have to be all subjectivity and tradition.

You are correct, repeatable experience as well.