Science of probability

[ateista]

There is no mathematical error concerning pi in the bible. I suggest you check what the scripture actually says. Better yet, check out the following link:

bibleprobe.com/pi.htm

I have seen it before. Quite an ingenious “explanation” - which of course depends on making the wall just “thick enough” so the trickery will succeed.

 

[Harmony1988]

I have seen it before. Quite an ingenious “explanation” - which of course depends on making the wall just “thick enough” so the trickery will succeed.

But one did not look at the purple maths link?

That’s ok, your opinion remains your opinion. However that does not result in any difference to the distinction in theoretical maths and practical maths.

In practice, nothing spherical is perfectly pi. What is noted there is exactly the measurements that would result in a practical application, minus 2000 years so using tools that were imprecise.

Your case holds only true if the Bible was attempting to prove pi.

Your logic is similar to asking “prove that pi is indeed 22/7 to all the significant places in a practical application” which cannot be done now, or ever.

IN FACT, if anything, the Bible would be lying if it gave the answer that conformed to 22/7 as the pi value, then we would KNOW the bible was lying, why? because in practice nothing is 22/7 EXACTLY, never, ever. If it did, friction wouldn’t exist.

Btw, i’m awaiting your response (if you are going to respond) to my previous posts. If not, whatever.

 

[ateista]

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.

Exactly. What does it mean that God inspired the Scriptures?

It could be that God “took over” the minds of the writers, and “placed” the data into them. In this case the errors would be of divine origin - after all God could have placed the correct information there.

Or it could be that the writers “hypothesized” God, and tried to imagine how God could have acted. After all no one was around at the time the events in Genesis are supposed to have occurred. If that is the meaning of “inspiration”, then the errors are simple human errors.

Human errors are everyday occurrences, divine errors are not supposed to happen. Therefore the second interpretation is much more likely. The only problem with the second interpretation is that it “rips off” the divine origin, and makes the Bible just another human mythology, of which dime a dozen.

Best wishes to you, too!

 

[elvisman]

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.

Are you reading my replies or are you simply sitting in your room at mom & dad’s typing the same replies over and over?

Re-read my previous post. Do some hermeneutical homework and then come back . . .

 

[elvisman]

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

Nope. The children are never to blame for the sins of their fathers.

The children will suffer the consequences of their father’s wrongdoing. If I robbed banks for a living and my family was living high on the hog, then I got arrested - they wold suffer for my sins. They would have to get jobs and live a lower standard of comfort.

It would be the same if I was promiscuous and contracted the AIDS virus, then passed it onto my pregnant wife, who then passed it onto my child.

You’ve been exposed again as an anti-Catholic . . .

 

[bobzills]

Nope. The children are never to blame for the sins of their fathers.]

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

 

[elvisman]

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

Show me where it says that they are liable for their father’s sins - where they are to blame - as you claim it said.

No, my anti-Catholic friend - the bible doesn’t make mistakes and I have proven it.

 

[elvisman]

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

I have a question for you, Bob -
Why do you identify yourself as Catholic in your profile when you are obviously not?

Judging from your posts, I don’t think you have the courage to answer that - I just thought I’d give it a shot.

 

[bobzills]

When we point out an error, it is sometimes said that this is a hyperbole. But what is a hyperbole, except a representation of something as different from the actual case of what it is. When you represent something as different from what it is, you have done something that satisfies the definition of an error. This is one way to make an error: to represent something as different from what it actually is.

 

[elvisman]

When we point out an error, it is sometimes said that this is a hyperbole. But what is a hyperbole, except a representation of something as different from the actual case of what it is. When you represent something as different from what it is, you have done something that satisfies the definition of an error. This is one way to make an error: to represent something as different from what it actually is.

Would you mind re-structuring that in English?

In the meantime - this is the dictionary definition of hyperbole - as I indicated in an earlier post:

hy-per-bo-le: The use of overly strong or exaggerated statements to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally.

 

[bobzills]

Would you mind re-structuring that in English?]

the language being used here is the English language:
When we point out an error, it is sometimes said that this is a hyperbole. But what is a hyperbole, except a representation of something as different from the actual case of what it is. When you represent something as different from what it is, you have done something that satisfies the definition of an error. This is one way to make an error: to represent something as different from what it actually is.

 

[elvisman]

the language being used here is the English language:
When we point out an error, it is sometimes said that this is a hyperbole. But what is a hyperbole, except a representation of something as different from the actual case of what it is. When you represent something as different from what it is, you have done something that satisfies the definition of an error. This is one way to make an error: to represent something as different from what it actually is.

While I attempt to break down your poorly-structured sentences to be able to properly respond, can you please answer the question I asked of you in Post #47:

Why do you identify yourself as Catholic in your profile when you are obviously not?

 

[bobzills]

Why do you identify yourself as Catholic in your profile when you are obviously not?

Once again, instead of answering the questions and concerns posed, the individual here launches an irrelevant, unprovoked personal ad hominem attack which goes nowhere.

 

[elvisman]

Once again, instead of answering the questions and concerns posed, the individual here launches an irrelevant, unprovoked personal ad hominem attack which goes nowhere.

I KNEW you would dodge the question. Imposters ALWAYS do.

I have already answered your questions - ad nauseum. You refuse to respond in kind. Instead, you have rehashed your previous questions.

To answer your last post #48 and again in post #50, I was finally able to decipher your garbled grammar:
*

When we point out an error, it is sometimes said that this is a hyperbole. But what is a hyperbole, except a representation of something as different from the actual case of what it is. When you represent something as different from what it is, you have done something that satisfies the definition of an error. This is one way to make an error: to represent something as different from what it actually is.

My answer:

The only thing I can gather from your poorly-structured response is that you think that my use of the word, “Hyperbole” is incorrect.

**I encourage you to look at the definition I supplied. Better yet – crack a dictionary open and a thesaurus to find out for ****yourself ****what the definition is. You will find that ****my ****application of the definition of hyperbole was dead-on in relation to **Matt. 7:4-5 & Matt. 23:9

Now - would you care to answer my question as to why you are masquerading as a Catholic when it is painfully obvious you are not?

 

[bobzills]

Another error concerns how Judas died:

“And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself.” (MAT 27:5)

“And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out.” (ACT 1:18)

 

[elvisman]

Another error concerns how Judas died:

“And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself.” (MAT 27:5)

“And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out.” (ACT 1:18)

Have you ever seen what happens to many people who hang themselves?
Did you know that many times, the head is detached from the body as a result of the sudden jerk? Apparently not. This is what most likely happened to Judas. Depending on the distance of the fall and the position he landed, he may very well have burst open.
Again, your argument is weak - as is your faith.**

As for the other matter you keep on dodging:
Are you ever going to answer my question as to why you are masquerading as a Catholic?
**I didn’t think so . . .

 

[strngrnrth]

the language being used here is the English language:
When we point out an error, it is sometimes said that this is a hyperbole. But what is a hyperbole, except a representation of something as different from the actual case of what it is. When you represent something as different from what it is, you have done something that satisfies the definition of an error. This is one way to make an error: to represent something as different from what it actually is.

So the definition of “error” is to be twisted to include expressions?

 

[bobzills]

So the definition of “error” is to be twisted to include expressions?

I am not sure. But it seems like it is an error of some sort to tell someone to call no man Father, and then in the next breath to say call all Catholc priests Father.

 

[bobzills]

Another problem is that it looks like God created light on the first day Gen 1:3-5, but then He did not create the sun until the fourth day Gen 1:14-19.
How could that be possible?

 

[Harmony1988]

I am not sure. But it seems like it is an error of some sort to tell someone to call no man Father, and then in the next breath to say call all Catholc priests Father.

Bobzills, you haven’t read what I gave you. I even took the liberty of quoting the relevant parts of the text from the website and even fonting them in a specific colour. But you aren’t interested in reading, you are more interested in bringing up the same thing over and over again that is answered:

What is 2 + 2 =?

It’s 4

Why does it say 2, I don’t get why it says 2 and then another 2, how does it equal 4.

Well using the axioms for closure under addition, 2 things plus another 2 things equals 4 on the number line.

What is 2 + 2=?

This is exactly the way you are going right now.

I won’t bother providing any evidence for your question, as it’s easily obtainable by looking at my last response to this.