Inerrancy of the Bible 2

This is a pretty poor example Incognito. We can verify that you are alive, so thus you must have had ancestors living 200 years ago. However, it is the claims that you make for these ancestors that would need verification. That you had ancestors living 200 years ago does not mean that any claim automatically becomes true. If you said one of your ancestors lived helped to write the Gettysburg address do we accept that this is true simply because you must have had an ancestor alive at that time?You see the Bible does produce names and claims of epic events, these are what need to be supported, and not that someone was alive.Anyone who claims that any book is 100% accurate surely has the evidence to support everything in that book. Otherwise, the claim is pointless. Well. Let us give you a huge window to work in.Can you provide direct evidence for one person or one event from any of the books from Genesis to Judges? This is giving you an enormous selection, it should be fairly easy. What do you imagine the percentage of ‘verifiable facts’ would be in the Pentateuch? I would hazard a guess at zero. My time is well spent thanks, and not with silly verse X says this but verse Y says that, these are boring pursuits.Oh, and you are correct, the kids are batting 100%, they have failed to support a single thing. I found the stalls being divided into 10 smaller units particularly amusing. But, seriously, I am actually concerned that their class teacher allowed them to post this particular 'apologetic' without supporting evidence. This is not a good way to educate children, they must be taught to support everything they write. I would say that we cannot verify a single thing before King Omri in the Moabite stone dated to around the middle of the 9th century BCE. That is a hell of a lot of people and epic events that we do not have a single shred of direct evidence for.Can I also mention this?Message 299: 36 Christians," they found an issue I can't refute, good luck!Do you have an explanation for why the KJV claims that Jabin was the king of Canaan, and do you have evidence that Canaan was ever a single united polity?Brian.

Hi, Wasn't this another Hovind argument?Has it been confirmed that Hovind actually was a science teacher?Brian.

GzusIt is frightening what people can get away with in America!!BTW, I was talking to a postgrad from Leeds uni in Glasgow today. He was there for a conference, but I never heard his presentation. I presented a paper entitled 'The Exodus: A Timeless Symbol of Freedom for all Nations'. My first ever conference paper and my sphincter was twitching like a rats nose. Brian.

Hi Incog, hope you are well. This is circular reasoning. Indeed, and I agree 100%.But, when epic event after epic event comes up blank in the textual, archaeological and anthropological record, we should start to perhaps question the way in which we are reading the Bible.For example, your reference in another thread to 600 000 men of fighting age and their families wandering in the desert for 40 years may in fact be a misunderstanding of the text. The word 'thousand' here is the Hebrew word 'eleph' which can mean 'family' or even 'tent'. Now, if the Bible stated that 600 families came out of Egypt then very few people would question this. But, if 'eleph' is taken as 'thousand', then this puts the number at around 2-3 milion, a number that is impossible to reach with 70 people over 430 years.A. Lucas(1944) The Number of the Israelites at the Time of the Exodus, PAlestine Exploration Quarterly 76, pp164-166)
working with official population figures from Annuaire Statistique 1937-8, informs us that between 1907 and 1937 the average annual rate of population increase per 1000 people was 11.69%. When he applied this growth rate to the 70 Israelites over a period of 430 years he arrived at a total population of 10 363, a number drastically at odds with the 2-3 million that would be required if the 'eleph' is taken as 'thousand'.Lucas also explains that: The population of the whole of the Administrative Division or Province, of Sinai, from the Mediterranean Sea on the north to the apex of the peninsula on the south, was only 15,058 in 1927, and only 29 951 in 1937, and there could not possibly have been either water or food sufficient for the number of Israelites given. 167-168)These figures cast serious doubts on the credibility of the Bible in regard to the numbers involved in the Exodus, not only do they make the population growth a physical impossibility, they also make it particularly unlikely for a group this size to survive off the land’s resources.Lucas’ population growth of 11.69% for the Israelites is put into a different perspective when we look at an estimate for world population growth before the birth of Christ. The population growth rate is calculated from the remains of cities, villages, other settlements, and the extension of cultivated land. (Livi-Bacci, M. (1992) A concise history of world population, Oxford: Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. p.30) In the 10,000 years prior to the birth of Christ, during which Neolithic civilization spread from the Near East and Upper Egypt, the rate increased to 0.4 per 1,000 (which implies a doubling in less than 2,000 years) and population grew from several million to about 0.25 billion. This rate of increase, in spite of important cycles of growth and decline, was reinforced during the subsequent 17 and a half centuries. The population tripled to about 0.75 billion on the eve of the Industrial Revolution (an overall rate of growth of 0.6 per 1,000). It was, however, the Industrial Revolution which initiated a period of decisive and sustained growth. During the following two centuries population increased about tenfold, at an annual growth rate of 6 per 1,000 (doubling time 118 years). This process of growth was the result of a rapid accumulation of resources, control of the environment, and mortality decline, and has culminated in the second half of the current century. (p.32)We can see then that a more realistic growth rate was only 0.4% per 1000, much lower than the 20th century figure employed by Lucas. But, if the Israelites had grown from a group of seventy to a group of several million in 430 years, it would be no surprise to discover that the pharaoh was concerned about them!Also, a group of the population size given in the Hebrew Bible would not require any divine assistance to overcome their ‘task masters’, they certainly would have greatly out-numbered them: Such a number would have, indeed, caused Egypt's Pharaoh consternation, for not only would there have been very little room for them in Egypt, but a group of this size could likely have taken over Egypt with or without weapons they would hardly have had to fear Pharaoh's army, which was probably at most about 20,000 men. (Mendenhall 1958: The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26 Journal of Biblical Literature, 77, pp. 64-65)On the surface, these statistics may be entertaining to read, but what they really ought to do is to alert us to the fact that we need to alter the way in which we are reading the biblical texts.Back to the 36Christians opening statement where they claim It is our stand that the King James Version of the Holy Bible is completely perfect. This suggests to me that they have already verified everything in the Bible or they could not have this conclusion. If they said we have 'faith' in the KJV's perfection then that would be different. But to say something is perfect without checking it out completely is surprising to me.It also looks as if their teacher is not teaching them any critical writing skills. I do not know what age these students are, but if they are at high school level then their teacher needs to go over their replies with them and highlight where they need to be puting in supporting evidence.But, at least they are reading the Bible and appear to be educating themselves about it. I actually think that through this enquiry that some of the students will come to learn that claiming 100% perfection for the KJV is simply a gimmick that some strange fundies dreamt up and that the Book is more impressive when viewed in the proper context.Brian.

Hi NT, LOL, the funny thing is, when I was waiting for the other presentations to end before the q and a session, I really did think 'what if someone in the audience says that there is an archaeologist called Wyatt who has found many artefacts that disagree with your conclusions, have you heard of his finds?' I had a very tactful answer all worked out just in case. But, all the questions were very sensible, a pleasant experience.Brian.

Hi Phat, It isnt just a case of protecting His sheep, it is the fact that a catastrophe such as this would be evident in the geological record. But, the planet would be ripped apart, and everything (apart from His sheep) would be wiped out. But, given the continuous historical record of the surrounding countries then we need to think again.Brian.BTW, Captain Kirk was born in Bethlehem, he had a prolonged life, and had kids on every planet in the universe that supported life

See you later Tom.Next time, don't make it so obvious Brian

Hi Incognito, I think you need to read my quote again Incognito, as you have read it incorrectly, that is okay because we all do that now and again.My quote from Lucas’ article actually said: informs us that between 1907 and 1937 the average annual rate of population increase per 1000 people was 11.69%.11.69% per 1000 people works out at 1.69%, which is still a figure way to high when viewed in the context of 1500 BCE near east.Here is the formula for working out population growth, it works in Excel if you have it:70*1.01169^430, if you use this formula you can see that it comes out (when rounded) at 10 363 But, you know that this is not how population growth works, you need an average population growth rate and then apply it to the group.How would you respond to the Mendenhall figures of 20 000 soldiers in the Egyptian armies at this time? Or Redford’s information about the total population being around 3-4.5 million? Your link seems to be talking about 600 million years ago, and it doesn’t give any date for when the lush land existed: Less old, though more expressive in some ways of the antiquity of Sinai, are the dozens of Wadis, or fossilized riverbeds, that define the terrain all over the peninsula. From the depth and frequency of the Wadis, we can tell that Sinai was at one time a lush and fertile region. All it says is ‘less old’ that could be any time at all.I do not see any evidence in your link that suggests that there were any settlements in the Sinai or that it is known to have supported extremely large groups of nomads all year round. Although it may be possible, there is no evidence that large groups of people could live off solely what they found in the Sinai. Even the Bible says that God had to provide manna for the group because of the poor resources.To support how unlikely it is that a huge group could live in the Sinai, there are extent Egyptian documents that speak of allowing groups into the eastern delta during times of famine to keep
themselves and their animals alive.Papyrus Anastasi VI informs us that: Another communication to my [lord], to [wit: We] have finished
letting the Bedouin tribes of Edom pass the Fortress [of] Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat--life, prosperity, health--which is (in) Tjeku, to the pools of Per-Atum) [of] Mer-[ne]-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, which are (in) Tjeku, to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive. (ANET, page 259)If the Sinai was a lush oasis then why would the Bedouins go to Egypt and subject themselves to taxes? But, we can estimate the possible growth rate from the remains of cities, villages, other settlements, and the extension of cultivated land. I would argue that no other area in the world has been excavated more than Egypt and near east, and the information that has been gained has helped to build up an extremely good idea of what the area was like.The World Book Encyclopedia, World Book Inc, Chicago, 1999.
Page 673. Causes: For thousands of years, birth rates were high. However, the population increased slowly and sometimes declined because death rates also were high. Then, during the 1700’s and 1800’s, advances in agriculture, communication, and transportation improved living conditions in parts of the world and reduced the occurrence of many diseases. As a result, the death rate began to drop, and the population grew rapidly. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable explanation of why we have had a rapid increase in the world population growth in the last 200 years or so. The population before this simply must have been lower or today’s population would be far higher.The New Encyclopaedia Britannica explains better: Volume 25, Macropaedia, 1993. Entry Population Page 1041 Before considering modern population trends separately for developing and industrialized countries, it is useful to present an overview of older trends. It is generally agreed that only 5,000,000-10,000,000 humans (i.e., one onethousandth of the present world population) were supportable before the agricultural revolution of about 10,000 years ago. By the beginning of the Christian era, 8,000 years later, the' human population approximated 300,000,000, and there was apparently little increase in the ensuing millennium up to the year AD 1000. Subsequent population growth was slow and fitful, especially given the plague epidemics and other catastrophes of the Middle Ages. By 1750, conventionally the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, world population may have been as high as 800,000,000. This. means that in the 750 years from 1000 to 1750, the annual population growth rate averaged only about one-tenth of 1 percent. The reasons for such slow growth are well known. In the absence of what is now considered basic knowledge of sanitation and health (the role of bacteria in disease, for example, was unknown until the 19th century), mortality rates were very high, especially for infants and children. Only about half of newborn babies survived to the age of five years. Fertility was also very high, as it had to be to sustain the existence of any population under such conditions of mortality. Modest population growth might occur for a time in these circumstances, but recurring famines, epidemics, and wars kept long-term growth close to zero. From 1750 onward population growth accelerated. In some measure this was a consequence of rising standards of living, coupled with improved transport and communication, which mitigated the effects of localized crop failures that previously would have resulted in catastrophic mortality.

​

Occasional famines did occur, however, and it was not until the 19th century that a sustained decline in mortality took place, stimulated by the improving economic conditions of the Industrial Revolution and the growing understanding of the need for sanitation and public health measures. Also from Massimo Livi-Bacci’s A Concise History of World Population Blackwell, Malden MA 1997.
pp 30-32 In many parts of the world before this century, in Europe prior to the late Middle Ages or in China before the present era, one can only estimate population size on the basis of qualitative information - the existence or extension of cities, villages, or other settlements, the extension of cultivated land - or on the basis of calculations of the possible population density in relation to the ecosystem, the level of technology, or social organization. The contributions of palaeontologists, archaeologists, and anthropologists are all needed.

​

The data on world demographic growth in tables 1.2 and 1.3 are largely based on conjectures and inferences drawn from non-quantitative information. Table 1.2 presents a synthesis of these trends. The long-term rates of growth are, of course, an abstraction, as they imply a constant variation of demographic forces in each period, while in reality population evolves cyclically. Following Biraben's hypothesis, according to which human population prior to the High Paleolithic era (30,000 -35,000 BC) did not exceed several hundred thousand, growth during the 30,000 years leading up to the Neolithic era averaged less than 0.1 per 1,000 per year, an almost imperceptible level consistent with a doubling time of 8,000-9,000 years. In the 10,000 years prior to the birth of Christ, during which Neolithic civilization spread from the Near East and Upper Egypt, the rate increased to 0.4 per 1,000 (which implies a doubling in less than 2,000 years) and population grew from several million to about 0.25 billion. This rate of increase, in spite of important cycles of growth and decline, was reinforced during the subsequent 17 and a half centuries. The population tripled to about 0.75 billion on the eve of the Industrial Revolution (an overall rate of growth of 0.6 per 1,000). It was, however, the Industrial Revolution which initiated a period of decisive and sustained growth. During the following two centuries population increased about tenfold, at an annual growth rate of 6 per 1,000 (doubling time 118 years). This process of growth was the result of a rapid accumulation of resources, control of the environment, and mortality decline, and has culminated in the second half of the current century. In the four decades since 1950 population has again doubled and the rate of growth has tripled to 18 per 1,000. In spite of signs that growth may be slowing, the present momentum will certainly carry world population to eight billion by about the year 2020 and ten billion some time during the upcoming century. The acceleration of the growth rate and shortening of the doubling time (which was expressed in thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution and is expressed in tens of years at present) give some indication of the speed with which the historical checks to population growth have been relaxed. It looks as if the consensus of opinion is that a sustained growth rate, of the amount needed for the Bible to be accurate, simply wasn’t possible before the advances made by science. Of course, for us to accept that there was 3 million people lost for 40 years would mean that you have to provide some decent evidence that these people existed in the first place, and, as we all know, there is not a single solitary shred of direct evidence for an Israelite Exodus or Conquest.Finally, it is good to have you aboard here, at least you try to answer peoples’ questions. All the guys who are replying to you are decent people, you should try to get along with them because everyone would benefit.Brian.

HI Arach,The sad thing is, it is perfectly possible that he is entirely genuine and that repeated bible quoting in improper context, after proper context has been shown (often by posting the entire section), mentions of dr dino, falwell, and bush? are convincing factors for him.I wouldnt be surprised if he was winding us up, but it is perfectly possible that he isnt.I have also noticed a trend in Christians that have went through a profound personal religious experience. They seem to be completely oblivious to any contrary evidence and they also often just ignore the problems that have been higlighted in their arguments.Remember 'Wise' and 'Desdamona', they both had a profound experience and they were both very strange people. Some of the arguments that they were convinced of were extremely frightening. Who could forget 'Wise's' pics of the 'Eye of God' (complete with catracts)in some nebula. As for Des, I think she had trouble stringing two words together.I would like to think that Tom is messing with us, but it is possible that he isnt.Brian.

The kids at Christian schools don't seem to get much computing time do they?

Hi Incog, 11.69 is a number, it is the number of people per 1000 that get added on to the popualtion each year. But, if you divide this number by 10, you get 1.169 per 100, surely even you can work out the rest.So, yes it is a number, but it is a number that makes it very easy to work out the percentage growth. But, no one who has the slightest clue about how population growths are worked out would suggest anything as silly as this. Sweet Jesus, what are you on about?I am saying that the population grew by 11.69 % per 1000 people, as there was far more than 1000 people living in Egypt at that time, then the population growth would not be 11.69 people annually.Population growth is worked out by adding the number of births to the group’s starting number, and then deducting the deaths and other ‘losses’ from this total. Therefore, if we have a starting population of 1,000,000 (which is still lower than the estimated population of 3500 BCE Egypt) and then use the population growth rate of 1.169%, we get a new total population of 1,011,690 for the first year only. So your claim that there was only an increase of 11.69 people annually is incorrect. The growth, with a starting total of 1 million people, means that in the first year that eleven thousand, six hundred and ninety new people in the population group. Next year, there is a growth of 1,169% of 1,011,690, which will mean that 1,023,516.6 people would now be in the group.1.169% is a huge population growth for the time and place we are talking about; I don’t think that you really understand the problems involved. Say we take Lucas’ 1.169% over a period of 430 years and work with a group beginning at just one million, how many people would be in that group after 430 years?1000000*1.01169^430 = 148,049,389Now, I would say that this total figure is insanely high, and I believe that Lucas intentionally used 20th century figures that he knew would be higher than mid second millennium BCE figures to demonstrate how absurd that biblical growth rate is.Now, Lucas’ growth rate is way too high, there is no way that one million people could grow to over 148 million in 430 years with conditions the way they were 3500-4000 years ago. But, if we use the growth rate suggested by the Bible for the Exodus group and apply that to this one million, then what do we get?The growth rate suggested by the Bible would be around 24.7% per 1000 people, or 2.47%:70*1.0247^430 = 2, 521,706If we apply this rate to the million we get, 36,024,384,455, which is completely and utterly ridiculous, unless you are a fundamentalist Christian, or a KJ inerrantist. Yes, it is way too high. Please try thinking about what you are saying. If at that time, population growths of this huge size were possible over a sustained period of time then the world would have been overcrowded thousands of years ago.Instead of your normal empty claims, why not try supporting your arguments? For example, do you have evidence from any ancient society that supports a population growth of 1.169% per year for 430 years? You haven’t burst my bubble at all, all you have done is to make yourself look silly and completely ignorant of just about every area of education known to man. Why?Why is it that in Japan, the country whose population has the longest life expectancy in the world, or the UK or France, societies far more advanced medically and technologically than 1500 BCE Egypt, should have a smaller population growth?What evidence do you have that ANY society’s population during the second millennium BCE grew at this rate for this period of time? Lucas applied them because he knew that the 20th century figures were much higher than the ancient ones, he was demonstrating that if the growth rate required by the Israelites was absurd by 20th century standards, then how much more absurd are they at a time when growth rates were much much lower? Don’t be sorry, you are doing a great job of showing your ignorance of the subject, keep going. But, they can be compared! The 20th century growth rates are much higher than the ancient ones, so they can be compared to show that the numbers involved in the Exodus were not possible at that time.There may well have been more nomadic groups in the ancient near east, but this actually limits population growth. It wasn’t until after urbanisation that population rates grew.Have you ever studied archaeology at all? I suggest that you read some surveys of settlements during this period to find out just how ludicrous your approach is. Maybe you don’t respect them because you do not understand science. LOL, this from someone with virtually no critical thinking skills at all! Someone who is incapable of working out that the population of Egypt 3500 years ago would have been a lot higher than one thousand.Have you had a personal religious experience, because you are showing all the classic symptoms of cognitive dissonance? Archaeology and near eastern history aren’t really your subjects either are they?Papyrus Anastasi VI is a copy of an official Egyptian military document. You need to do more studying.You are thinking about Anastasi I, which is a completely different text. Do try reading articles ‘word-for-word’ it makes things so much easier. Yet you think that the Bible is a good reference for historical accuracy? No one said that there weren’t millions of people in the era that we are discussing; but we are discussing the population growth rate over a stated period of time. Try to keep up.If you had troubled yourself to read the page 1041 quote, (word for word) then you would have found out that by the beginning of the Christian era there was an estimated 300 million people in the world, but 8000 years earlier the estimate was between 5 and 10 million people. What you should have done was to work out the population growth rate from these figures to find out what the approximate rate would have been. I’ll do it for you.10000000*1.000425^8000 = 299,424,649What is interesting, if you had gone on to read the Livi-Bacci quote, is how his figure of 0.4 per thousand fits in nicely with the figures given in the ‘page 1041’ quote. Not reading an article word for word seems to be the one area in which you do excel.BTW, any luck in finding out when King Jabin ruled Canaan as a single polity? If not, maybe you should add that to your list of KJV errors.BrianThis message has been edited by Brian, 01-28-2005 05:45 AM

They would have reasons to build campfires, which do leave remains. There would be pottery for food and drink, some form of permanent abode, jewellery, tombs, weapons, tools, clothes, excrement, animal bones etc.The Bible does tell us where the Exodus group camped, although it gives two contradictory routes for the Exodus. There are very few sites that can be identified with any certainty, but one site that has been confidently identified, is that of Tell el-Qudeirat (Kadesh Barnea), which played a major role in the biblical account of the desert wanderings (Numbers 13:26, 20:1, 4).The Bible claims that the Israelites camped here for 38 of the 40 years that they were in the wilderness:From The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Ed. George Arthur Buttrick, Abingdon Press, New York, 1962.Entry 'Kadesh-Barnea' After Moses and the Israelites left Mount Sinai they journeyed north westwards across the 'great and terrible wilderness' (eltih) toward the hill country of the Amelekites and settled in Kadesh-Barnea (Deut. 1:19-20)

​

The corresponding passage in Num. 13:26 speaks of the location as the wilderness of Paran, but it is evident that Kadesh is meant. It was from here that a company was sent out to spy out the land of Canaan. When their favourable report led to the divine decree that the entire generation would perish in the wilderness and only their children inherit the land promised by God, it was from Kadesh that the Israelites, rejecting the counsel of Moses, made a hasty attempt to force their way into the hill country of the Maorites and were beaten back with great slaughter. After this event, they remained in Kadesh 'for many days'.

​

It is not certain how long this sojourn in Kadesh lasted. The whole series of chapters from Numbers 13 to 15 has no mention of any removal, and chapter 20 finds them still in Kadesh, so that it might be inferred from them that almost the entire period of the wilderness sojourn was spent there. And:From, Dictionary of the Bible John L Makenzie, Chapman, London, 1968.Entry Kadesh. In Dt. 1:2 the Israelites reach Kadesh after 11 days travel from Horeb, in Dt. 1:46 they remained there a long time, more explicitly 38 years (Dt. 2:14) setting out from Kadesh to the stream Zered Every excavation at this site has uncovered nothing that predates the 10th-9th centuries BCE (M. Dothan ‘Kadesh-Barnea’ in The Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations of the Holy Land vol III pp 697-8). Cohen excavated el-Qudeirat to virgin soil and discovered a series of three Israelite forts, but none of these predated the 10th century BCE.Also, remember that the Bible claims that all of the Israelites that left Egypt were to die before entering Canaan (even Moses), so we would expect a huge number of skeletal remains to be at Kadesh-Barnea, given that it was only two years after leaving Egypt that the Israelites camped there.You can add this to your growing list of errors.Brian.