They say math is the best evidence.
If this is true, then the best evidence that the Bible is true is the Bible's mathmatical precision.
If the vessel had no thickness and then it would not be a vessel, it would be a line that did not exist. Because even a line on paper has thinkness.
23And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
24And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.
25It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.
26And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
This atheist knows enough to read it before opening his mouth.We have gone over this many many many many many times. Because atheists know almost nothing about the Bible.
I know more about the Bible than most Christians. In a recent survey it was found that the most Biblically literate people in the US are, in fact, atheists and agnostics.They do not want to know anything about the Bible.
What I see is you've made up your mind to one thing and one thing only. The Bible cannot be wrong about anything. Nevermind what, if it's in the Bible then it's correct. That and only that is that you live by. It's spawned it's own term, apologetics. And it's what you do. So when someone points out an error in the Bible you just come back with the old hackneyed arguments. Whether they are actually correct or not is irrelevant.So they keep pulling their same old tired pathetic arguments over and over again. Why don't we just number them. You could say I present argument number five. Then I will say of course I will defend with number 7. Then you could say ah but what about number 15 and I can say did you consider arguement number 10.
You mean like, "the mathematical precision of the Bible is what makes it astounding"? When clearly there's nothing about the math in the Bible that's astounding at all unless you're thrilled all the pages go in order.The bottom line is be origional and come up with something new. We are really getting tired of your reruns and leftovers.
Talk Origion for one.Who is "they"? before I get to the fact that I disagree with "they" for multiple reasons, who is "they"?
Again you need to demonstrate that you know something about the Bible. So far you have only demonstrated that you know nothing about the Bible.You mean like, "the mathematical precision of the Bible is what makes it astounding"? When clearly there's nothing about the math in the Bible that's astounding at all unless you're thrilled all the pages go in order.
Talk Origion for one.
"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."
Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953
Are you suggesting that Talk Origion quotes people they do not agree with? You mean that atheists do not even agree with themselves? That would make you all a lot of loners.First, this is Talk Origins quoting karl popper, and without a link I can't verify if its talk origins' actual views.
Of course they do. Quoting someone can be use for reasons other than showing agreement.Are you suggesting that Talk Origion quotes people they do not agree with?
I'm sure you'll all be having a laugh about it later down at the Catholic club... oh.You mean that atheists do not even agree with themselves? That would make you all a lot of loners.
Are you suggesting that Talk Origion quotes people they do not agree with? You mean that atheists do not even agree with themselves? That would make you all a lot of loners.
Again you need to demonstrate that you know something about the Bible.
Ussher book is a big, big, big book. No one seems to have clicked on the link to look at his book to get an idea what it is all about. Everyone is quick to comment but they don't want to do any research to verify if what they are saying is true or not.Ussher can add up, therefore the Bible must be true!
The pi applied to a place where the spiritual was observed and in fact resided for a time need not be bound to physical only pi. The return from Babylon was not a one off. More like a trickle if I recall....nice try.So the best evidence that the Bible is true is stuff in the Bible? Really?
5 - If it were shown that a book having mathematical precision was all that was needed to prove it true, then it fails many times. 1 Kings 7:23, for example, suggests that pi = 3. How many people returned from Babylonian exile? Ezra 2:64 says it should be 42,360 -- however when you add them all up yourself (2:3 to 2:60) , the number comes up way short. It's difficult to show that the bible simply sucks at math...
The pi applied to a place where the spiritual was observed and in fact resided for a time need not be bound to physical only pi. The return from Babylon was not a one off. More like a trickle if I recall....nice try.
No, dad! There is one and only one pi. It can't be off by one digit in the trillionth of a trillionth decimal place. That can be proved to any person who is not delusional or intellectually very ... subnormal.The pi applied to a place where the spiritual was observed and in fact resided for a time need not be bound to physical only pi.
No, dad! There is one and only one pi.
Oh really??? How do you know?
You seem to assume a physical object that is fixed? That would be lame.
That depends...was the area and object in question in a physical only area?? Context.Spiritual math, then?
In his book published in 1650: "Annals of the World" Bishop James Ussher tells us:
"I ignored the difficulties raised by chronologers who are occupied by the love of contention, as
Basil notes. Hence I deduce that the time from the creation until midnight, January 1, 1 AD. was
4003 years, 70 days, 6 hours. Also based on the death of Herod I conclude that the birth of our
Saviour was four full years before January 1, 1 AD. According to our calculations, the building
of Solomon's temple was finished in the 3000th year of the world. In the 4000th year of the
world, Mary gave birth to Christ Lu 2:6 (of whom the temple was a type). Joh 2:21 Hence Christ
was born in 4 BC. not 1 AD. {e}"
The good Bishop then gives us an exact and precise history of the world from 4004BC up to 70 ad. This is when the temple was tore down in Jerusalem and the Hebrews were scattered to the wind (world). The actual beginning of the Church or the Age of Grace (Time of the Gentiles) would have been on Pentacost in the year 29 AD. This is based on using the year 4004 for the birth of Jesus. He began His ministry at the age of 30 and His ministry lasted 3 years. Jesus was crucified on Passover, what we call Easter. Then on the day of Pentacost fifty days later the Church began. (7 weeks of 7 days, plus 1 day) In the year 29 AD, so 2029 AD would be the end of the second day or the 2000 year anniversity of the Church.
There are scoffers who complain that Bishop Ussher did not get it all exactly right. But his mathmatical precision is beyond reproach. Some of his theorys like all theorys change over time. But the mathmatical precision continues to be accurate. It has been said that math presents the best evidence. If this is the case then Math is the best evidence for the Bible. Because the math always works out.
Here is a link for the good Bishops book published in 1650:
Annals of the World : Ussher, James, 1581-1656 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
There are scoffers who complain that Bishop Ussher did not get it all exactly right.
So to clarify, you are willing to change the date of Jesus' birth based on the date of a near miss asteroid.
Yep, because no one know for sure when Jesus was born.
No, it sure doesn't.1 Kings 7:23, for example, suggests that pi = 3.
So when was Jesus born?I do love a good shaudenfreudegasm
It would appear the biggest Ussher scoffer is Jazer.
So when was Jesus born?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?