Science of probability

[elvisman]

Scripture says to call no man Father. But that is erroneous because Catholics call their priests Father.

That’s because ignorant dabblers of scripture and ignoramuses don’t understand context and hyperbole:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

Look - if you’re going to try to discredit the word of God - don’t identify yourself as a Catholic.

Nice try, though. Actually, it wasn’t - I was just being nice.

 

[JonW]

It is the whole veracity of the Bible which is in doubt here. Any error, no matter how miniscule it might be (and this is not a miniscule error at all) puts the concept of “Godly inspiration” into serious jeopardy. I suggest that even the smallest error repudiates the divine inspiration, the errors reveal that the Bible is just a collection of the musings of ancient goatherders (not that I have anything against goatherders) whose ignorance is the explanation for the errors in the Bible.

I completely agree that their ignorance is the explanation for the errors in the Bible. You say you have a problem with “inspiration”, claiming, one assumes, ambiguity in meaning. It’s just God acting in human history. In a sense, of course, He always does. But apparently there are times when He takes a special role specifically for our salvation. Obviously, as an atheist (?), you won’t accept this, but apart from that, I’m interested in your objections. Given that we agree (and so does the Catholic Church) that the “errors” in the Bible are due to human error, the better approximations of pi during and immediately after the text was written is immaterial to the argument. BTW, the bibleprobe article above is interesting, and may be right. Even if it’s not, I don’t see how a genuine Biblical error of this kind is any kind of argument against divine inspiration. God bless (my way of saying best wishes).

Jon

 

[elvisman]

There appears to be an error with reference to the age of Joachin when he began to reign:
Second Book Of Paralipomenon
Chapter 36:
9 Joachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and he did evil in the sight of the Lord.
But according to:
Fourth Book Of Kings
Chapter 24
8 Joachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, a and he reigned three months in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Nohesta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

Again - do your homework instead of trying to debunk scripture while trying to maintain the label of “Catholic”.

The notes on the Latine Vulgate say this of his age in Chapter 36:9"
9 “Eight years old”… He was associated by his father to the kingdom, when he was but eight years old; but after his father’s death, when he reigned alone, he was eighteen years old. 4 Kings 24. 8.

---

Any “errors” in the bible were due to human error when copying the manuscripts. This has been show time and time again by biblical historians.

 

[elvisman]

Which alleged deaths are only recorded the Bible… But even if they were recorded elsewhere, what would that “prove”? Only that they were convinced of their reasons. Are you willing to use the same standards and proclaim that the Muslims who perpetrated the attacks on the Twin Towers thus gave a “valid testimony” of their faith? I think not.

Funny how, when you strap a bomb to a terrorist maniac or slam a plane full of them into a building - they are more than willing to go to their promised land with the legions of sex slaves.
Waterboard them and they sing like birds.
NOT the same kinds of torturous deaths that the Christian martyrs went through.

I already did.

Ummmm - no, you didn’t - which proves my point.

 

[bobzills]

That’s because ignorant dabblers of scripture and ignoramuses don’t understand context and hyperbole:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

Look - if you’re going to try to discredit the word of God - don’t identify yourself as a Catholic.

Nice try, though. Actually, it wasn’t - I was just being nice.

It is very clearly an error.
The Bible says to call no man Father.
Catholics call their priests Father.

 

[bobzills]

Any "errors" in the bible were due to human error when copying the manuscripts. This has been show time and time again by biblical historians.

Not so. There are other errors. For example,
there is an error as to whether or not man should give in secret or whether they should let their charity in giving shine before all men. Which is it: to give in secret or to let your giving be observed by all?
Matt 5:16 “In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (NIV)

 

[bobzills]

Here is another question:
Are children liable for the sins of their fathers or not?
In one place the Bible says yes, in the other place it says no, so it looks like there is an error here?
Yes:
Isaias chapter 14: 21 Prepare his children for slaughter for the iniquity of their fathers: they shall not rise up, nor inherit the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities
No:
Deut: chapter 24: 16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but every one shall die for his own sin.

 

[elvisman]

It is very clearly an error.
The Bible says to call no man Father.
Catholics call their priests Father.

It is very clearly an uneducated interpretation. Apparently, you didn’t read the link. I provided it so that I wouldn’t have to list the many passages that refute your ridiculous misinterpretation.
You’re simply attempting to play devil’s advocate - and rather pathetically, I might add.

A rudimentary knowledge of scripture would show you that hyperbole was used here - as in other passages. In case you don’t know what hyperbole means - it is the use of overly strong or exaggerated statements to make a point.
Case in point - Matt. 7:4-5 states:
*"How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? *
**You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye." ** How many people do you know of that can fit a beam in their eye? Is this a mistake? Absolutely not - to the educated mind . . .

 

[elvisman]

Not so. There are other errors. For example,
there is an error as to whether or not man should give in secret or whether they should let their charity in giving shine before all men. Which is it: to give in secret or to let your giving be observed by all?
Matt 5:16 “In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (NIV)

Well - there’s yet another clue that you’re not a Catholic - quoting from the NIV.
Like I have state before - with a rudimentary knowledge of scripture should be blindingly obvious what the difference is here.

Matt. 5:16 is telling us to be a good example so that others may come to know God and give glory to him.**
Whereas, Matt. 6:3-4 tells us not to brag about our charity.

St. Francis of Assisi used to say about this very thing:
"Preach the Gospel daily. When necessary, use words."

---

Well - I’m off to bed. We’ll talk again tomorrow.

 

[elvisman]

Here is another question:
Are children liable for the sins of their fathers or not?
In one place the Bible says yes, in the other place it says no, so it looks like there is an error here?
Yes:
Isaias chapter 14: 21 Prepare his children for slaughter for the iniquity of their fathers: they shall not rise up, nor inherit the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities
No:
Deut: chapter 24: 16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but every one shall die for his own sin.

Context, context, context.
Isn’t this getting a little embarrasing for you?

 

[bobzills]

Well - there’s yet another clue that you’re not a Catholic - quoting from the NIV.
Like I have state before - with a rudimentary knowledge of scripture should be blindingly obvious what the difference is here.

Matt. 5:16 is telling us to be a good example so that others may come to know God and give glory to* him*.
Whereas, Matt. 6:3-4 tells us not to brag about our charity.

St. Francis of Assisi used to say about this very thing:
"Preach the Gospel daily. When necessary, use words."

---

Well - I’m off to bed. We’ll talk again tomorrow.

It’s the same in the Catholic Douay Rheims version:
Matthew 5:16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
and
Matthew 6:3 But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. 4 That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. 5 And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. 7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.
So in one passage the Bible says to shine your light before men, and in the next passage the Bible says to keep your light hidden in secret.

 

[bobzills]

Context, context, context.
Isn’t this getting a little embarrasing for you?

You did not answer the question:
Are children liable for the sins of their father yes or no?
Which is it?

 

[bobzills]

And the Bible appears to calculate pi to be 3, which is not correct. The correct value is 3.14159…, where the three dots indicate an infinite series of terms beyond that point.

 

[Harmony1988]

It was a statement of facts.

When getting things wrong, admit it, don’t expect me to pull up dictionary definitions:

google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+reasoning&btnG=Search&meta=

To get those “facts” down on paper/internet, whatever, what did you do? You reasoned it. Statements or not, there is reasoning behind it.

You are right: it is “one”, it is the “only one”. And it is very likely a later addition. But the point remains: there are no other sources to substantiate the Bible. It must be examined on its own accord.

No, that’s not what I meant when I stated that, as in “only one”, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t think too much of it, I just put the word one in. Firstly it’s not a later addition, reading the link would actually help you “reason” and understand the “facts”, and secondly it’s not the “only” one. Perhaps it’s the “only” one that is the “most” credible, but that’s besides the point, because that’s subjectivity.

No, credibility of the claims, not the witnesses. If you would claim that you won 10 bucks on a scratch-off lottery, I would accept your claim as probably true. If you would claim that you won the jackpot on five different state lotteries on the same week, I would doubt your claim, because it would not be credible.

Yes so? Can you apply this better to the situation? An analogy is an analogy, but this doesn’t say much on what we are discussing.

He was the only one. And even his testimony is believed to be a later addition by historians.

It’s “disputed” as almost all things with history are, and don’t make it sound like all the historians disagree with it. Historians can’t get it exactly right as to when Euclid lived, they can’t get it right when it comes to figuring out when exactly the book of Nine Mathematics in ancient china was written, does this mean it was a “later addition”? The only available copy is from 1213, however the commentary on it from 1213 says it’s from a much earlier period, it’s the only source. So I guess using your logic, he is not credible enough. So what do we then? We investigate, and what do we find?! What?! The chinese emperors destroyed chinese texts throughout the centuries!? Oh wait, that sounds remarkably like what happened during Nero’s reigns in regard to CHristian related documents. But you know, let’s forget about that kind of stuff, let’s cherry pick what we want to believe. Fallacy.

OK. The Bible states that the value of “pi” is exactly “3”. (Don’t bother to point out that the Bible is not a science textbook. It is supposed to be the word of God. Since it states such serious errors, its “divine” origin is highly doubtful.)

Firstly, think of practicality and measurements. Can you give me the exact NUMERICAL value of pi? You can’t can you? So does this mean our engineering fails? No, similarly the cauldron created worked in practical terms. In either case you don’t read, I don’t believe for once you read the scriptural bit. No where does it state that “pi is equal to 3” or “pi is exactly equal to 3”

"He made also a molten sea, of ten cubits, from brim to brim, round all about; the height of it was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits compassed it round about. "

Going to a secular source:

If this discussion of a “sea”, or large bowl, had been referring to what is called an “ideal” bowl (a mathematical object, not existing in a physical sense, and having no thickness that could be felt or handled), then the text would indeed be claiming that the value of pi is three. But the text is referring to a real-world physical object, having the thick sidewalls necessary to support its own weight.

Now that you know how to measure cubits, can you see that it would be rather difficult to measure the curved surface of a bowl in cubits? Instead, a straightened rope would be used to measure the length. The rope would then have been moved to outline a circle with the desired circumference. Also, Hiram would not have just tossed some brass in the furnace and waited to see what came out. He would have designed the piece and would have given his workmen instructions.

purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

Which is correct. And logical. Because nothing in the real world created in terms of pi is exactly pie, the ratio between the circumference, diameter. God inspired words have nothing to do with it. It’s stated correctly when it comes to the scriptural bit.

You however are not a credible source, you said:

The Bible states that the value of “pi” is exactly “3”

Sure enough that I would not base my life on it.

That’s not what I’m asking you, I’m questioning your logic in the matters of maths, probability and more recently practical applications of mathematics.

 

[Harmony1988]

And the Bible appears to calculate pi to be 3, which is not correct. The correct value is 3.14159…, where the three dots indicate an infinite series of terms beyond that point.

You are also another case with no knowledge of distinction in practice and theory. In practice, noting spherical in this world has a measurement of pi, ratio in circum and diameter. Nothing. Similarly, in the Bible, this was a practical application, the cauldron which was built was not a theoretical ideal, and hence was using REAL measurements. No real measurements equate to true pi. So infact they are actually as accurate as anyone with the measurements of cubits were, and perhaps more so accurate than you if you were asked to construct a cauldron with similar tools.

This is what the source says:

The circumference formula is C = 2(pi)r, which gives us:

  540 = 2(pi)(86)
  540 = 172(pi)

Solving, we get pi = 540/172 = 135/43 = 3.1395348837…, or about 3.14.

Um… Isn’t “3.14” the approximation we all use for pi? Hmm… I guess the Phoenicians were fairly accurate after all.

Read the link for the whole thing.

Read the below post

or:

purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

Secular source:

 

[Harmony1988]

Scripture says to call no man Father. But that is erroneous because Catholics call their priests Father.

It’s actually amazing what google can do for you:

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love “the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men” (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.

Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into “gurus” is worldwide.

This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a “cult of personality” around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.

He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.

catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

One thing you lack for sure is the understanding of figurative speech. Next time someone tells you “Oh cry me a river” - I hope you don’t actually attempt it.

 

[Harmony1988]

I completely agree that their ignorance is the explanation for the errors in the Bible. You say you have a problem with “inspiration”, claiming, one assumes, ambiguity in meaning. It’s just God acting in human history. In a sense, of course, He always does. But apparently there are times when He takes a special role specifically for our salvation. Obviously, as an atheist (?), you won’t accept this, but apart from that, I’m interested in your objections. Given that we agree (and so does the Catholic Church) that the “errors” in the Bible are due to human error, the better approximations of pi during and immediately after the text was written is immaterial to the argument. BTW, the bibleprobe article above is interesting, and may be right. Even if it’s not, I don’t see how a genuine Biblical error of this kind is any kind of argument against divine inspiration. God bless (my way of saying best wishes).

Jon

There is no error, the Bible doesn’t even state anything to the extent of pi is = 3, what they give is measurements which imply pi = 3, however, measurements in the real world, even today do not lead to pi equating to 3.

The Bible wasn’t making a theoretical justification, it was regarding the construction of the cauldron and hence giving the measurements used. It wasn’t attempting to prove the value of pi. Secular sources also confirm this as well common sense.

 

[Harmony1988]

There appears to be an error with reference to the age of Joachin when he began to reign:
Second Book Of Paralipomenon
Chapter 36:
9 Joachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and he did evil in the sight of the Lord.
But according to:
Fourth Book Of Kings
Chapter 24
8 Joachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, a and he reigned three months in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Nohesta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

The correct age of Jehoiachin was 18, not 8. Obviously, Jehoiachin was 18 when he began his rule since it says he did evil in the site of the Lord which suggests maturity and responsibility.
The discrepancy in ages is probably due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 10 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented values of ten. would equal the number 14 where would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyri, then the dates would be off by values of 10 years.

You can’t see the Jewish number notation, so see this text:

carm.org/diff/2Chron36_9.htm

It also mentions papyrus, what is papyrus?:

“Papyrus had the advantage of being relatively cheap and easy to produce, but it was fragile and susceptible to both moisture and excessive dryness”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus

What kind of ages are we talking about when dealing with scriptures? Close to 2000 years, documents surviving that long you should be wondering how on earth there was NOT more scribal errors from reading ancient smudged faded text.

 

[Harmony1988]

It’s the same in the Catholic Douay Rheims version:
Matthew 5:16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
and
Matthew 6:3 But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. 4 That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. 5 And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. 7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.
So in one passage the Bible says to shine your light before men, and in the next passage the Bible says to keep your light hidden in secret.

I believe elvis man has discussed this issue of figurative speech. It seems to me you are reading figurating speech as you would with normal speech. Which is a grave mistake, not only now, but your englis literature class as well.

Matt 5:16 “In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (NIV)

1 Peter 2:12 “Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that . . . they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.”

Matthew 23:3,5 “Do not ye after their [Pharisees’] works. . . . all their works they do for to be seen of men.”

Skeptics ask: Are we to do our deeds before men (per Matthew 5 and Peter) or is that wrong (per Matthew 6 and 23)? I say, hang 'em for contextual crimes again.

Note that Matthew 5 tells us to do deeds in the same way – as what? The previous examples are of a city on a hill and a lamp. Lamps and cities don’t light for the sake of showing off – they are passive instruments. They don’t seek or take praise; they don’t know or care that anyone watches, they just shine and do their jobs. That’s our example.

On the other hand, the Matthew 6 verse is after a warning about not making a public spectacle out of your giving, and not announcing it with trumpets like the hypocrites do. Now if you are publicly announcing your “good deeds” and being a hypocrite, you are far from letting people see your good works: You are in fact setting a bad example, and being a poor witness for Christ (and actually, just a jerk in general, whoever you are). So the two pieces of direction in Matt. 5 and 6 are progressive education, and they go together: Set a good example, but don’t do the peacock strut, lest you tarnish those good works with the stain of hypocrisy, and thereby defame the cause of Christ. The remaining two verses then draw from this lesson.

tektonics.org/gk/gooddeedshow.html

I find it amusing the only thing you “seem” to find contradictions is in FIGURATIVE language which by it’s very nature has to be studied more closely. Why not use google for once? When you find something that some one christian out of 3 billion hasn’t already addressed in the past 2000 years, let us know. Until then, google does really well.

I know you don’t believe in the Bible, but this quote:

“seek and ye shall find” also applies to university research.

www.google.com

 

[Harmony1988]

Here is another question:
Are children liable for the sins of their fathers or not?
In one place the Bible says yes, in the other place it says no, so it looks like there is an error here?
Yes:
Isaias chapter 14: 21 Prepare his children for slaughter for the iniquity of their fathers: they shall not rise up, nor inherit the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities
No:
Deut: chapter 24: 16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but every one shall die for his own sin.

Once again and thanks to Google. I think you need to read the PRECEDING verses of scripture, infact that entire bit of scripture to see what exactly is going on. It seems you are pulling lines out from skeptics bible:

tektonics.org/lp/paydaddy.html

Does this analogy mean anything to you?

In other words, if Dad goes alone and robs the Hickory Farms store and steals all the weinerschnitzel, then Junior doesn’t get thrown in the slammer if he wasn’t part of it. But if Dad is a smoker, then Junior’s lungs will get polluted; if Mom drinks too much when pregnant, Junior may be born with fetal alcohol syndrome. If Dad brags about robbing the Hickory Farms store or seems content with his lot in jail, and Junior hears or finds out about it, Junior might be inspired to a life of crime also!

Oh just read the article. I think it does a fine job of addressing it. But do you see the concomitancy? Baby see, baby do. Scripture isn’t read like reading the lyrics off mary had a little lamb, it’s intention is to be spiritual, and as a result is not fully expressed in modern english, in either case it requires more thought than what you put into it. If you can’t be bothered, that’s fine, but remember, google is your first friend next time.