Mathematical Precision of the Bible

[hasone]

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.

Who is "they"? before I get to the fact that I disagree with "they" for multiple reasons, who is "they"?

 

[Phred]

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.

Irrelevant. We're talking about the INSIDE measurements. In other words, the smallest possible circumference. Whatever thickness it had would only make it larger and MORE out of whack with PI. Here's the entire context.

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.

We have gone over this many many many many many times. Because atheists know almost nothing about the Bible.

This atheist knows enough to read it before opening his mouth.

They do not want to know anything 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.

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.

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.

The bottom line is be origional and come up with something new. We are really getting tired of your reruns and leftovers.

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.

 

[Jazer]

Who is "they"? before I get to the fact that I disagree with "they" for multiple reasons, who is "they"?

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

 

[Jazer]

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.

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.

 

[hasone]

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

First, this is Talk Origins quoting karl popper, and without a link I can't verify if its talk origins' actual views.

Second, this is not the statement you made. A close reading will, in fact, suggest that Popper may have believed that mathematics is not the best kind of evidence. From this paragraph it seems he believed that proofs cannot tell us things about the world we live in. See the sentence after the one highlighted, and the quote as a whole.

Yet again, no statement with the connotations you attribute to this nebulous 'they' is found here. So, again, who is 'they'?

 

[Jazer]

First, this is Talk Origins quoting karl popper, and without a link I can't verify if its talk origins' actual views.

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.

 

[Nostromo]

Are you suggesting that Talk Origion quotes people they do not agree with?

Of course they do. Quoting someone can be use for reasons other than showing agreement.

You keep making handfuls of assumptions and that's why your arguments don't make any sense. You're just desperate to join up the dots and make a point, but don't seem to care that logic and reality get trodden on while you do it.

You mean that atheists do not even agree with themselves? That would make you all a lot of loners.

I'm sure you'll all be having a laugh about it later down at the Catholic club... oh.

 

[hasone]

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.

Sometimes people quote those they disagree with to refute them. I am suggesting you have not provided the context needed for me to evaluate Talk Origins' use of the statement.

In fact, not all atheists are perfectly alike or believe the exact same things. For example, my friends and I disagree about which song is the Best Song Ever. I usually don't feel lonely, though, because I'm having fun sharing music with them.

Atheists share a lack of belief in God. they need not share anything else (by the way, I don't know Popper that well, he may not be an atheist. In fact, Talk Origins, which is a place I'm not familiar with, may not even be an atheist website, but only one that promotes evolutionary theory. )

Anyways, atheists can and do interact in almost every possible way, which would include disagreement. It would also include agreement, friendship, love and marriage. See, atheists are people, like you and me. They are diverse, as people tend to be. Some like hip-hop, and some like classical. That's okay. We can still get along with each other and with theists.

For example, some atheists couldn't care less about other people. Some of us, by way of contrast, spend 10-12 hours a day working for barely any money at non-profits dedicated to education, community service, and social justice because we like people and want to spend that much time each day working with them. Some of us spend the vast majority of our lives helping the poor, downtrodden, oppressed, sick, and neglected not just because Jesus told us to (though we think he was a cool dude), but because it's the right thing to do. Not to mention unbelievably rewarding.

But, of course, what am I thinking? You know more about millions and millions of people (including me) than they do, and you know that because we disagree with each other about some things atheists are loners. None of us would dream of spending 10-12 hours a day doing nothing but interacting with and helping people. We certainly wouldn't be helping people who have religious, philosophical, and political beliefs we disagree with , despite the fact that every person has something to offer this world, and is worthy of our deepest respect and love. None of us could possibly believe so deeply in the potential and worth of others.

There wouldn't be enough atheists out there, and they wouldn't be diverse enough, that some of them could be quite social. Unlike Christians, there is not one of us capable of having both the genes and upbringing that would allow him or her to like people to the extent that he or she will resist a strong societal call to do nothing but make money and focus on themselves, their families, and their friends to the exclusion of every other member of society.

Furthermore, there is nothing more to us than our atheism. There is no way that there could be other parts of our lives, and other foundations to build relationships with other people on, such as a love of music, service, math, science,children, history, sports, computers, or family.

No, you're right. We're all loners. Every single one of us. My life is a lie.

Or maybe we're people just like Christians are, and that making vague, generalized statements about atheists is about as smart as making vague, generalized statements about Christians.

edit: Just after I posted this, I finished a satisfying math problem, and at that moment one of Miles Davis' masterpieces (Blue in Green) from his masterpiece album Kind of Blue started coming out of my speakers. Right now I think I'm going to, in my typical loner atheist style, share both of these joys with my best friend.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Again you need to demonstrate that you know something about the Bible.

You first.

 

[Jazer]

Ussher can add up, therefore the Bible must be true!

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.

 

[dad]

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.

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.

Spiritual math, then?

 

[Gracchus]

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. 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.

 

[dad]

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.

 

[dad]

Spiritual math, then?

That depends...was the area and object in question in a physical only area?? Context.

 

[Incariol]

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

Oh Lord, please say you don't actually think the world started in 4004 B.C.

 

[Blayz]

I do love a good shaudenfreudegasm

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.

It would appear the biggest Ussher scoffer is Jazer.

 

[AV1611VET]

1 Kings 7:23, for example, suggests that pi = 3.

No, it sure doesn't.

If anything, the molten sea is oval.

 

[dad]

I do love a good shaudenfreudegasm







It would appear the biggest Ussher scoffer is Jazer.

So when was Jesus born?

 

[Blayz]

So when was Jesus born?

I am no Ussher scoffer like Jazer. 4BC works for me. Ussher also understands there was no year 0 and has math that accounts for that. Another thing he and Jazer do not have in common.