MathGeek Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I have a coupe of really strange challenges for you... 1) In Isaiah 65:25, The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. Okay, the wolf and the lion are both predatory carnivores with the sharp teeth capable of tearing flesh. The lion has powerful claws to grapple onto prey and it pounces upon it for sustinence. Both animals have powerful bites, which are used to keep other predators away. Now, considering how God made everything within his Creation perfect, did the predatory traits of the wolf and the lion exist back in the garden? If not, did they evolve into the bloodthirsty creatures we may see today on some Animal Planet special? Please provide empirical evidence to back any claim. 2) In Ken Ham's book "The New Answers Book", this is what he claims about mathematics... The laws of mathematics are an example of a "transcendant truth". They must be true regardless of what kind of universe God created. This may be because God's nature is logical and mathematical. Thus, any universe He chose to create would be mathematical in nature. The secular humanist cannot account for the laws of mathematics. Mr. Ham mentions several mathematical ideas in his text: the laws of physics, universal constants, the anthropic principle, the rules of addition, the transitive property, the commutative properties of addition and multiplication, and the binomial theorem et al. So, if this verbose assertion is correct, why aren't there mathematical priniciples established in the Bible? Why aren't the Laws of Algebra set forth in the book of Genesis? Why is it called Euclidean geometry and not Mosaic geometry? Why isn't that convoluted triangular area formula named after Hero & not Joseph from Nazareth? Again, please provide empirical evidence to back any claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 No takers even after almost one week. Those fundies are mental wimps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Yeah, the silence is deafening. So much for their evidence of a perfect world before the Fall. So much for their evidence that "sin" contaminated nature. It is one big zero. That much math I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Mr. Ham mentions several mathematical ideas in his text: the laws of physics, universal constants, the anthropic principle, the rules of addition, the transitive property, the commutative properties of addition and multiplication, and the binomial theorem et al. So, if this verbose assertion is correct, why aren't there mathematical priniciples established in the Bible? Why aren't the Laws of Algebra set forth in the book of Genesis? Why is it called Euclidean geometry and not Mosaic geometry? Why isn't that convoluted triangular area formula named after Hero & not Joseph from Nazareth? Again, please provide empirical evidence to back any claim.And why is it that the biblical authors don't know how to count? The Book Of Kings lists 2000 baths in the Jewish temple but according to the Book Of Chronciles, there's 3000 baths in it. If the absolute truths of math is proof that God created the universe, why can't God figure out how many baths are in his own temple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 26, 2008 Author Share Posted January 26, 2008 Neon, even I didn't know that fact. That's a pretty glaring discrepency. Has anyone tried to defend it like so... -Those passages were written at different times when the temple was being constructed/remodeled. -It was a simple typographical error since men had written it. -Despite the misnumbering, does that detract from the overall historical record? The comebacks against those are easily formulated, so it is a moot point. Are there other mathematical anomilies that I can sniff out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I don't know how people defend it as I've never actually used it in a debate myself before but I'm pretty sure they take place during the same time. The verses that get the numbers wrong are 1 King 7:23-26 and II Chron. 4:2-5 and in both books just before those verses both verses talk about Solomon making a bronze altar and measuring its length. If you want to know others, Wikipedia has some other numerical errors listed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cont...ronomic_history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I wonder if Pi DID equal 3 before the fall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I wonder if Pi DID equal 3 before the fall... If so, it should've reverted after the crucifixion. Or maybe will revert on that day lions eat straw with the lambs. We're always getting bait switched by the almighty so it's hard to tell. Perhaps gods power represents 3/pi proportion of the cosmic force, and the devil represents the (pi-3)/pi proportion. maybe you have to figure in a logarithmic function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I wonder if Pi DID equal 3 before the fall... If so, it should've reverted after the crucifixion. Or maybe will revert on that day lions eat straw with the lambs. We're always getting bait switched by the almighty so it's hard to tell. I didn't realize there would be anything in a math thread for me to comment on but lambs and straw and theology...I know something about those things. 1. Sheep prefer hay to straw. I don't understand why the animals in the Bible are made to eat straw. Straw is bedding; hay is food. Straw is the stems of grain and not very nutritious; hay is dried grass and full of nutritions. Lambs live primarily off their mother's milk when very young but start nibbling hay as they get older. My dad, brother, and I used to also feed grain to the adult sheep and older lambs. Casey on these forums might have much to add. 2. Now for the theology. I laughed out loud. (Something has to be really funny for that to happen when I'm all alone.) The idea that the crucifixion could fix math--that was so funny. Seriously, you've got a point there, HuiaDan. Pi should have reverted and lambs and lions should have been reconciled with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Or does all of that work the same as the Christians' becoming perfect--all the good stuff happens only after everyone is dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Isaiah 65:17, would that not be the answer to the first question.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. Only if you're a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Isaiah 65:17, would that not be the answer to the first question.... 17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. Only if you're a moron. Errm....The day of the Lord must be at hand. Behold, a new thing has occurred in the earth. Gramps is quoting scripture. Just kidding. Thanks for covering for the moron. I would have thought he/she/it would have posted the quote if it is so important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Mathgeek, Sorry for ignoring your questions, but I really do not have answers that satisfy me so they probably will not satisfy you. A lot of the Bible is poetic language not to be taken literally and I really am not sure if carnivores will truly become herbivores in the age to come. It seems more like a poetic way of expressing a world of peace without violence to me. Second, I have never heard of Ken Ham, but do not follow the reasoning that math formulas prove the existence of God. Seems like a stretch to me. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 Mathgeek, Sorry for ignoring your questions, but I really do not have answers that satisfy me so they probably will not satisfy you. A lot of the Bible is poetic language not to be taken literally and I really am not sure if carnivores will truly become herbivores in the age to come. It seems more like a poetic way of expressing a world of peace without violence to me. Second, I have never heard of Ken Ham, but do not follow the reasoning that math formulas prove the existence of God. Seems like a stretch to me. John I don't really buy it because if the Bible is inerrant and meant to be the basis of all human understanding, the evidence of such things should be littered throughout the natural world. The natural world should verify EVERY claim made in the Bible. Of course, I am probably giving God too little credit since he has more OMNI than a North American hotel chain. He did create humankind with the capacity to be intelligent enough to "read between the lines", but if he made them with the mental capacity to work wood and metal, be stewards of the Earth, and to create complex bureaucratic structures, then there should be some scientific findings and mathematical know-how in the Bible and not in the Greek, Arabic, Indian and Babylonian texts dating back to around the same time period. Is there any evidence of the Jews borrowing the mathematical system from the Babylonians considering how they were captives of them for three solid generations? I mean if God is mathematical in nature, why did a rival religion only a few thousand miles away develop the symbolic concept for nothing before the Jews even heard of it? Kind of ironic for a culture that is stereotypically obsessed with dollar signs, wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I would say that few Christians believe that the Bible is innerent or that it is "meant to be the basis of all human understanding" as you say. The Bible reveals God's plan for the salvation and spiritual maturing of mankind during this present age. That is all. It is when people try to use the Bible as a source of science or history or anthropology or medicine etc. is when the problems begin. It is like trying to learn biology from a cook book. You will come up with all kinds of spurious theories and will miss what the cook book is really for. At least that is how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 I would say that few Christians believe that the Bible is innerent or that it is "meant to be the basis of all human understanding" as you say. The Bible reveals God's plan for the salvation and spiritual maturing of mankind during this present age. That is all. It is when people try to use the Bible as a source of science or history or anthropology or medicine etc. is when the problems begin. It is like trying to learn biology from a cook book. You will come up with all kinds of spurious theories and will miss what the cook book is really for. At least that is how I see it. Then, what is the point in having all that extra B.S. in there like the Creation story, like the "early history" of Israel, like the story of God's power tripping over Job, like the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. In my stunted opinion, if one searching is for the spiritual good stuff, why not just strip away all the messy stuff and leave the good medicine behind? Why not just publish a bible called "The C.I.N.O Bible" or "The Bible of Good Medicine"? Of course, now I remember... Revelation 22:19: If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. The fact remains, apologetics is far from my strong suit but I think I can stand my own two feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 "Why not just publish a bible called "The C.I.N.O Bible" or "The Bible of Good Medicine"?" The did... It's called 'The Message'... but for better English, try 'The Jefferson Bible' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I would say that few Christians believe that the Bible is innerent or that it is "meant to be the basis of all human understanding" as you say. Maybe that's true where you live, Kratos, but as for deep south USA, many millions at least pay lip service to the doctrine that the Bible is inerrant. To get around the fact that there are problems with this they also say "in its original autographs." Too bad there are no "original autographs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 "Why not just publish a bible called "The C.I.N.O Bible" or "The Bible of Good Medicine"?" The did... It's called 'The Message'... but for better English, try 'The Jefferson Bible' I knew that...I was testing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I would say that few Christians believe that the Bible is innerent or that it is "meant to be the basis of all human understanding" as you say. The Bible reveals God's plan for the salvation and spiritual maturing of mankind during this present age. That is all. It is when people try to use the Bible as a source of science or history or anthropology or medicine etc. is when the problems begin. It is like trying to learn biology from a cook book. You will come up with all kinds of spurious theories and will miss what the cook book is really for. At least that is how I see it.Do you have any reliable poll or survey to back this statement up that most Christians don't believe in a literal word of God? And on what basis do you know how the bible is supposed to be read? Is there some instructional manual out there that tells us how we should or shouldn't read the bible? Like is there some bible verse that says "thou shalt not read the bible literally"? And if some parts of the bible aren't meant to be taken literally, how do you know the rest is? Unless there is some bible verse that says "thou shalt not read the bible literally", how do you know which parts are meant to be taken literally and which ones aren't? And if the bible is not to be read literally and is meant to be a metaphor, how do you know you understand the meaning of the metaphor correctly unless there is some instructional manual to tell us how to decipher the metaphor? And as I keep asking Christians, if God is all-knowing and he really cares that there's a right or wrong way to read the bible, why didn't he use his all-knowing powers to realize ahead of time that we mere mortals wouldn't be able to comprehend it and leave his message behind in a clearer way so that it would be impossible to misunderstand it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 If it's not some great moral compass, why quote it as such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 I would say that few Christians believe that the Bible is innerent or that it is "meant to be the basis of all human understanding" as you say. The Bible reveals God's plan for the salvation and spiritual maturing of mankind during this present age. That is all. It is when people try to use the Bible as a source of science or history or anthropology or medicine etc. is when the problems begin. It is like trying to learn biology from a cook book. You will come up with all kinds of spurious theories and will miss what the cook book is really for. At least that is how I see it.Do you have any reliable poll or survey to back this statement up that most Christians don't believe in a literal word of God? And on what basis do you know how the bible is supposed to be read? Is there some instructional manual out there that tells us how we should or shouldn't read the bible? Like is there some bible verse that says "thou shalt not read the bible literally"? And if some parts of the bible aren't meant to be taken literally, how do you know the rest is? Unless there is some bible verse that says "thou shalt not read the bible literally", how do you know which parts are meant to be taken literally and which ones aren't? And if the bible is not to be read literally and is meant to be a metaphor, how do you know you understand the meaning of the metaphor correctly unless there is some instructional manual to tell us how to decipher the metaphor? And as I keep asking Christians, if God is all-knowing and he really cares that there's a right or wrong way to read the bible, why didn't he use his all-knowing powers to realize ahead of time that we mere mortals wouldn't be able to comprehend it and leave his message behind in a clearer way so that it would be impossible to misunderstand it? This is just my understanding and not meant to satisfy all, but as I stated earlier, God's purpose for the Bible was not to add a bunch of head knowledge to man about the universe. It was to aid in God's purpose of mankind growning up spiritually. Part of this training is to learn to be led by the Spirit and to overcome the carnal mind through the mind of the spirit. If the Bible were written like a math or science text book, that would satisfy the curiousity of those who do not desire to be spiritual, but it would not accomplish God's purpose one bit. We would just have more head knowledge and a greater dependence upon the carnal mind, yet no spiritual growth whatsoever. The Bible is meant to be a closed book to the carnal mind and is meant to only be understood through the Spirit and by the spiritual man. 1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. I am sure that someone will comment "how convenient" (church lady voice works best here) that those who wrote the Bible put these verses in to explain why those who try to understand the Bible without the help of the Holy Spirit will find so much confusion and contradiction in their attempts to understand. That is fine if it works for you, but I am just saying how I see God's purpose in keeping the Bible text hard to understand without the help of the Spirit. God wants us to fellowship with Him more than He wants us to understand without Him. The Bible was written to encourage relationship between a Father and His chidren so it is written in a way that we cannot get it without Him. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 This is just my understanding and not meant to satisfy all, but as I stated earlier, God's purpose for the Bible was not to add a bunch of head knowledge to man about the universe. It was to aid in God's purpose of mankind growning up spiritually.Like Gramps said, if the bible's purpose isn't to add knowledge to man about the universe, why are you quoting it to give knowledge to the universe about God's purpose? Part of this training is to learn to be led by the Spirit and to overcome the carnal mind through the mind of the spirit. If the Bible were written like a math or science text book, that would satisfy the curiousity of those who do not desire to be spiritual, but it would not accomplish God's purpose one bit. We would just have more head knowledge and a greater dependence upon the carnal mind, yet no spiritual growth whatsoever.If we're supposed to be led by the spirit and not use the bible as a text book, then why do some Christians fall away? Is the spirit leading Christians to be ex-Christians if they stop believing? You also are still not answering any of my questions. If some parts of the bible aren't meant to be taken literally, how do you know which parts of the bible are we supposed to read like a text book and which parts are we supposed to rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us to understand? And if God really cared about how we read the bible, why didn't the Holy Spirit leave what it teaches in a way so that it would be impossible to misinterpet? The Bible is meant to be a closed book to the carnal mind and is meant to only be understood through the Spirit and by the spiritual man.Again, if the Holy Spirit really cared that we understood what it said, why can't Christians ever agree on what the Holy Spirit is telling us? God wants us to fellowship with Him more than He wants us to understand without Him. The Bible was written to encourage relationship between a Father and His chidren so it is written in a way that we cannot get it without Him. John Again, if the bible is really meant to tell us that God cares more about having a relationship with him, why didn't he make this clearer when he left his message to the world? If having a relationship with God is more important than understanding him, how are we supposed to have a relationship with God if we can't understand what God wants us to do to have this relationship with him? When a couple gets married, do the partners involved just assume that their relationship is the most important thing and not try to understand what their spouse wants out of their relationship? No, they have to come to an understand as to what boundaries are presented in their relationship or chaos can break out if the partners involved don't respect those boundaries, and if the partners can't understand what their spouse wants, how can they understand what the boundaries are to continue having their relationship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 God wants us to fellowship with Him more than He wants us to understand without Him. The Bible was written to encourage relationship between a Father and His chidren so it is written in a way that we cannot get it without Him. John John this "fellowship" "relationship" stuff makes me want to tear my hair out. What the hell does this mean? We can't "get it without him." Any other book we can read, get a reasonable comprehension and embrace or discard it, but NOT HERE apparantly. What is it? Surrender my brain in some way? Let go and let God? Please explain in clear terms how this "relationship" works, how it starts and the mechanics of it on a day-to-day basis. Stop using Christian jargon and explain this! See this thread : http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=21411 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Mathgeek, Sorry for ignoring your questions, but I really do not have answers that satisfy me so they probably will not satisfy you. A lot of the Bible is poetic language not to be taken literally and I really am not sure if carnivores will truly become herbivores in the age to come. It seems more like a poetic way of expressing a world of peace without violence to me. Second, I have never heard of Ken Ham, but do not follow the reasoning that math formulas prove the existence of God. Seems like a stretch to me. John Congratulations, Kratos, for attempting to show your face even when you don't have all the answers. I say this because I assume you posted this after reading my suggestion that it would be a good idea. I also know from another thread that you appreciate being respected and I see people are ripping you to shreds. I further assume that you really don't know what you are doing wrong and that possibly you will welcome some insight on the matter. John, this is going to hurt so you might not want to read further. The main problem, as I see it, is that you pretend to have all the answers when you so obviously don't. How do you show your arrogance? You presume to speak for God, for the Bible, for most Christians. I will copy some of the offending parts so you can see exactly what it is that I mean, in case you are interested. Here goes: Sorry for ignoring your questions, but I really do not have answers that satisfy me so they probably will not satisfy you. [we all know this is barely half the truth but we all use this kind of white lie to save face so that might pass] A lot of the Bible is poetic language not to be taken literally [only the author can tell us how the book is meant to be taken. Obviously, you didn't write the Bible so you can't make this statement.] I would say that few Christians believe... [just saying what you personally believe would be lots safer for you] The Bible reveals...[then you go on to state what the Bible reveals as though you knew better what is in the Bible than the rest of us, when you so obviously don't] From Post 22 God's purpose for the Bible was [you are speaking for God; obviously you can't do that; you're not God so you don't know what god's purpose was for the Bible. You go on to make a lot of statements based on your ideas of God's purpose for the Bible. Since you don't know God's purpose for the Bible, none of those statements can be accepted. All of this is outside the fact that god's existence has yet to be proven] The Bible is meant [again, you didn't write the Bible so you don't know what the authors meant.] is meant to only be understood through the Spirit and by the spiritual man.[here you bring in a whole new realm of problems: Religious Arrogance--the idea that only Your Religion can possibly know truthâ„¢. Let me mention that originally I said "Christian Arrogance" and "Christians," but I am not sure that Christians have a corner on this. If you claim "But our God is the true God," please be informed that you are but one religion saying that. It looks awfully funny from the outside how Christians will be so adamant that the world believe them when they say it. Why would we believe it?] church lady voice works best here [misogynist. Sounds like you think women are kinda stupid. NOT OKAY, esp. when we're looking at a half-wit of a male here (meaning you). Whew! Oh sorry, no name-calling in this forum.] God wants us to fellowship with Him more than He wants us to understand without Him. [another statement about what god wants, as though you were god, as though you had proven god's existence.] The Bible was written to encourage relationship between a Father and His chidren so it is written in a way that we cannot get it without Him. [another statement about the purpose of the Bible as though you were its author] So if you want to be treated with respect like a human of equal value to us it would help if you started treating us--women as well as men--with respect as humans of equal value to yourself. The choice is yours. We love chewing up Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts