The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The heptadic structure of the genealogy of Jesus Christ can not be replicated

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Abeceda has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 166 times Debate No: 95074
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Russian mathematician Ivan Panin discovered this structure a century ago. Skeptics claim that it's only coincidence and that it can easily be written by anyone. So I am here to request that a person be the contender and actually produce such a genealogy and prove once and for all that Ivan Panin was an idiot.

What you have do to, is write an entirely fictional genealogy and fulfill all of the requirements below. You are free to use any computer programs that you believe would be able to help you in your mission. I wish you luck and I am positive that you will not be able to do it, exactly because it's divinely inspired. May the one that is correct win.

(1) The total number of letters has to be divisible by seven
(2) The total number of words has to be divisible by seven
(3) The total number of names has to be divisible by seven
(4) The total number of vowels has to be divisible by seven
(5) The total number of nouns has to be divisible by seven
(6) The total number of generations has to be divisible by seven
(7) The total number of male names has to be divisible by seven
(8) The total number of words that begin with a vowel must be divisible by seven
(9) The total number of words that appear in one form must be divisible by seven
(10) The total number of words that appear only once must be divisible by seven
(11) The total number of words that begin with a consonant must be divisible by seven


I am not going to do that. Obviously, that would be very hard, next to impossible to replicate. That doesn't mean it is divine.

This question is set up as a classic "burden of proof" fallacy (Look here for the definition: You are claiming that your answer is true unless someone can prove it wrong. By attempting to force me to prove your answer wrong, you are giving me a vastly harder task.

I'm also reminded of a tweet by Brian Eno (Wikipedia Page Here: "Instead of shooting arrows at somebody else's target, I make my own target around wherever my arrow has happened to have landed." It's easy to make such a difficult to replicate pattern, as long as you create the pattern first and then decide the criteria. For example, try to replicate the criteria below.

1. There are x whole integers
2. None of them are greater than x * x
3. None of them are lower than x - x
4. One of them is x squared
5. One of them is x factorial
6. They are all divisible by x
7. One of them is equal to x * x
8. One of them is equal to x * (x - 1)
9. One of them is equal to x * (x - 2)

The only possible answer is "3, 6, 9" but that doesn't prove that there is anything divine about that series of numbers
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 month ago
Chuck Missler is a loon.

Here is an evangelical source explaining why Chuck's claim that the antichrist is an ET or related to one is not scriptural. He is widely identified as a false teacher and some have gone as far to say he is not of sincere faith, but merely, literally; a charlatan book merchant.

Who am I to judge, but the explanation does fit the facts.

He is also notorious for plagiarism, which I guess one could use to claim he is not a crazy as his stolen works would lead you to believe.
Posted by Abeceda 1 month ago
Are you able to read Greek? Perhaps you should take 30 minutes out of the 12 hours that you have of an entire day to see a lecture by Chuck Missler:
Posted by Overhead 1 month ago
Again, what are the names? Looking in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is I believe the earliest complete greek manuscript of the New Testament, counting all instances of names you still don't end up with 7 names as far as I can see. You get up to 6 if you include all 3 of the times Mary is mentioned.

Also no matter how many times Mary appears it is still only one name, what you should have written is "instances of names".

Also I have heard of plural forms but not "f.ex. plural form".
Posted by Abeceda 1 month ago
Esiar -- your ignorance is irrelevant

Overhead -- I did not write names that appear once, I wrote names. This means the same name repeated more than once is included in the total value of names. Also, haven't you heard that certain nouns have a plural form, or for example singular form? If you haven't that kind of amazes me.
Posted by Esiar 1 month ago
I fail to see a genealogy proves anything
Posted by Overhead 1 month ago
What are the 7 non-male names? I can't find them in the text and it doesn't make sense to try and reproduce this is the bible doesn't do it anyway. That was simply one of the easiest things to check and if Panin can't get this right I don't really trust him to get the harder stuff right.

Also what is "f.ex. plural form" I googled that particular phrase and there are precisely 0 results on the entire internet of that being said other than right here and how.
Posted by Abeceda 1 month ago
Overhead - I checked and "begins with a noun" is not included in the original list, so I must have accidentally written it, I corrected myself. The "form" being referenced in point 10 is f.ex. plural form. Regarding names, of the nouns, 35 are proper names, or exactly 7 x 5. These 35 names are used 63 times, or 7 x 9. The number of male names is exactly 28, or 7 x 4. These male names occur 56 times or 7 x 8. The number which are not male names is 7.

About your final point, that there is nothing special about the number seven being included and that it's purely accidental (since this doesn't apply to 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 etc... only 7) the only thing I can say to that is, accept the challenge, write me a genealogy like that and you'll see that even with your intelligence and the technology of the 21st century you can't do it.
Posted by Overhead 1 month ago
A cursory glance seems to show that the bible doesn't meet these criteria either. For instance 4 female names are mentioned (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Mary) so it is impossible for the total number of names and the total number of male names to be divisible by 7 into an integer.

Also points 9 and 10 are confusing. How does a word begin with a noun - surely it either is a noun or it isn't and what is the "form of a word being referenced in point 10?

Moreover, I don't think this is really an accurate test. The bible allegedly has a load of things to do with the number 7 involved in one section of one book in one language. The thing is, there is nothing innate to the number 7 or those particular examples of the number 7 being involved. If the finding had been all about the connection of the number 8 and the number 8 had cropped up in different ways than you claim the number 7 has, surely that would be viewed as just as extraordinary. Therefore anyone that can present a test which has a lot of links to a single number in some form should be viewed as equal.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.