The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2011, 11:03 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2011 11:06 AM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(04-10-2011 06:52 AM)Sines Wrote:  
(04-10-2011 02:27 AM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  I would comment, but I have no clue what any of those measurements mean.

What it means is that the temple was literally too small to contain all the gold, silver, iron and bronze that went into it, even if the 'temple' was a solid block of the materials.

I got that, but what is the conversion of a cubit or a talent?

Besides, this isnt really proof of anything to religious nuts.
They could come up with any number of explanations to make this work. You are dealing with people who believe in magic for crying out loud. You think a logical argument means anything to them? There are countless arguments just like this and they generally use the same strategy for dealing with each of them, simply ignore them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2011, 01:36 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(04-10-2011 11:03 AM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  Besides, this isnt really proof of anything to religious nuts.
They could come up with any number of explanations to make this work. You are dealing with people who believe in magic for crying out loud. You think a logical argument means anything to them? There are countless arguments just like this and they generally use the same strategy for dealing with each of them, simply ignore them.

Maybe... but they can't argue the numbers. They'll have to justify how they aren't the same temples, or something.

Besides, even if it convinces no-one, it's still funny to us Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2011, 07:58 AM (This post was last modified: 05-10-2011 08:40 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2011, 10:03 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Your posts continue to be unreadable until I hit reply to see the plain text. You should really figure out what that problem is, because I believe it's not just me. But whatever, I'll respond best as I can (It is hard to read the plain text in the reply window though, so forgive me some mistakes).

First off, of course I didn't bother reading the surrounding text. I said I didn't. I gave my reasons for not doing so. One, I trusted the source reasonably well, and two, I enjoy doing math, but not reading the bible. I was not taking this overly seriously, I didn't think I was going to convince anyone. I was doing it for fun, so my 'scholarly work' only went as far as I wanted to do it. I admitted this, and left it open to anyone to correct me on the not-math parts. Likewise, I did not check on the weight conversion of 'talents'. I did check cubits though. I used the Egyptian standard cubit, as this was one cubit I found, and given the time and era, it was the most appropriate. By this point, the ancient hebrews had a lot of experience in architecture from Egypt Tongue. However, while the cubit is an inaccurate measurement unit, even if we were to dig up Andre the Giant and use his forearm, it would not save the temple. There's not enough leeway in the cubit to fix things.

Now then... as I said for the materials, this building is pretty damn small. I mean, it's bigger than my house, sure, but for a building constructed by a government, it's on the small side. The vast, VAST amount of the materials mentioned had to go into paying the workers. If we assume that the iron and bronze were in roughly equal amounts to silver (I'll explain why later) then the funds that went into this temple would have taken up four times the size of it. What you're trying to tell me is that silver, gold and bronze (Let's say the temple was made out of nothing but iron, wood and stone) enough to fill the temple three times was insufficient payment to the workers? Remember, we're still left with more iron than we need. Hell, let's go the best route, and use only the most dense materials, and say that the temple was made of pure gold and silver. All of the iron and bronze went as payment, along with over half of the silver, and that's just enough to create a temple sized cube. That is over 35 million pounds of silver, and over 75 million pounds of bronze and iron each, to pay for the construction of a relatively small building.

Certainly, some money went into paying the interior decorators. Those who would shape the gold, paint pictures, etc... But we're still talking, best case scenario in terms of your point, paying around 200 million pounds of silver, bronze and iron. That is a lot of freakin' money. I know I'm off the 'not possible' road, and back into the standard, "Do you REALLY believe that?" style of bible critique, but I still think it's a valid point.

Now then, the passage I used specifically says how much silver there was, but not how much iron and bronze there was. So I'll continue from there. Now, when we say something is 'too great to be weighed' we mean... it's too great to be weighed. However, the silver was NOT 'too great to be weighed'. The silver WAS weighed. Now, admittedly, iron and bronze are less dense, and it might take longer to weigh the same amount. But it's not that much less dense. If it can't be weighed, that doesn't mean the iron and bronze has some property that makes it's weight non-deterministic, it means that there is no practical way to measure it, because it is so numerous, you might as well not try.

The silver, however, gives us a minimum possible upper bound for what the ancient isrealites were willing to weigh. They were willing and able, according to the bible, to weigh at least 75 million pounds. There is no reason why they wouldn't have been able to weigh the iron and bronze if it was in similar quantities to the silver.

It's far more likely that 'too great to be weighed' meant "We used so much of this stuff, we didn't even bother keeping track." When we say in the modern day, something is too much to measure, we mean that there was so much, that we eventually stopped keeping track, or never bothered in the first place. Why should a simple phrase such as 'too much to measure' mean anything different than 'too much to measure'? If 75 million pounds of silver is not too much to measure, then there must have been about that much iron and bronze at least, otherwise, it would be in small enough quantities to measure. Perhaps if the passage said "...of silver, and bronze and iron and wood and stone," I would accept that the bronze and iron were not of enough importance to be measured, like wood and stone, or in small quantities, also possibly like the wood and stone. But it's not. Like the silver and gold, their weight is not considered unimportant, even if the exact values are not known.'

And lastly, off topic, you talk about how the supernatural and science will converge. You talk about bringing back some modern technology of today back 100 years and them calling it magic? Well, certainly, there are people today who think the sun is magic, and I don't just mean primitive tribal persons. But more likely, after you explain to them what it is, they will accept it for what it is. One hundred years ago, people had already lived through the creation of the first flying machine. They knew humans could do incredible things, with science and technology. If I showed them my computer, the less educated people of those days might not even be able to recognize that the technology of their day could not produce such a wonder. The more educated people would, however, correctly conclude that I possess technology in vast excess of what the known science of their day could produce. Whether they believe I'm a time traveler or not, they will except that what I possess is not magic, but technology, merely technology of which they have no understanding.

Clarke's Third Law is a fair point, to some extent. However, it misses one noteworthy thing. Whether or not it is indistinguishable from magic, doesn't make it magic. It IS technology. It IS science. It IS studyable, understandable, and replicable. And how many christians really believe that Yahweh is just another thing in the universe, which is bound by laws of operation, that can be studied and understood by humans (Providing the co-operation of Yahweh, of course, but whether or not he would, it'd still be possible)? Are Angels going to turn out to be winged humanoids, but filled with helium gas, to explain how they can fly despite their poor aerodynamics? If science and the supernatural are to converge, the magic goes away. And if the magic goes away, what's so special about god? What makes him different than any other person who can rule your life? If he's a good god, what makes him any different than a wise man? If he's a dictator, what makes him different from Kim Jong Il?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2011, 07:33 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(05-10-2011 10:03 AM)Sines Wrote:  Your posts continue to be unreadable until I hit reply to see the plain text. You should really figure out what that problem is, because I believe it's not just me. But whatever, I'll respond best as I can (It is hard to read the plain text in the reply window though, so forgive me some mistakes).

Just have about five minutes (maybe), so I will just start the response in order to answer the primary concern, which is this: you have, based upon a verse, created misinformation. And even now, despite the fact that some of my posts do not post (which is of no fautl of my own), I made that very clear.

It was done to "strengthen" atheist doctrine and refutation of the bible, rather than a reasonable attempt to actually analyze this other than to spin it to fit atheism. It is doubtful that anyone that calls themselves "scientific" would view the approach, or the conclusion, as reasonable.

I suggest, if you want to ridicule scripture, that you look at the actual measurements that were used in construction, but then, you would have to read more than one verse, and I can assure you, your math would have to, once the actual figures were looked at, change.

(05-10-2011 10:03 AM)Sines Wrote:  First off, of course I didn't bother reading the surrounding text. I said I didn't. I gave my reasons for not doing so.

One, I trusted the source reasonably well, and two, I enjoy doing math, but not reading the bible.


What source? One verse?

Look, I will supply just a few verses, please just look at them, and tell me that the verse in question does not take on a completely different meaning than when just viewed by itself:



1 Chronicles 22
King James Version (KJV)



6Then he called for Solomon his son, and charged him to build an house for the LORD God of Israel.

7And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God:

8But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.

9Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.

10He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

11Now, my son, the LORD be with thee; and prosper thou, and build the house of the LORD thy God, as he hath said of thee.

12Only the LORD give thee wisdom and understanding, and give thee charge concerning Israel, that thou mayest keep the law of the LORD thy God.

13Then shalt thou prosper, if thou takest heed to fulfil the statutes and judgments which the LORD charged Moses with concerning Israel: be strong, and of good courage; dread not, nor be dismayed.

14Now, behold, in my trouble I have prepared for the house of the LORD an hundred thousand talents of gold, and a thousand thousand talents of silver; and of brass and iron without weight; for it is in abundance: timber also and stone have I prepared; and thou mayest add thereto.


But nowhere do we see that these are specific measurement actually used in the construction.


(05-10-2011 10:03 AM)Sines Wrote:  I was not taking this overly seriously, I didn't think I was going to convince anyone. I was doing it for fun, so my 'scholarly work' only went as far as I wanted to do it.

You were not taking trying to ridicule scripture and those who believe in God...seriously?

You were not taking giving misinformation for a personal agenda...seriously?

That is the problem.

Thats all for tonight. I hope you don't get mad, but look, nobody has the right to lead others to a belief by using dishonesty, whether it is intentional or not. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but I just ask that you look at the premise of the thread, it's intention, and the desired result you looked for, and ask yourself: is this not the very thing that the false teachers of false religion do? Why is it okay for one group...but not the other?

I hope this posts, to make it easier to respond to.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2011, 02:20 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2011 02:31 AM by Sines.)
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
First of all, your post did post properly. Yay!

Right then. Of course I wasn't taking the bible seriously. I didn't put too much effort into double checking the boring details because, well, it's hardly my only proof against the bible. The bible is appallingly pathetic, and years of listening to apologists try to excuse it have, rather than made me see the light, only served to highlight how morally and scientifically bankrupt it is.

Now, I'm sure every atheist has a 'favorite' verse, or passage. Most seem to like the endorsement of slavery, punishment of women for not yelling loud enough while being raped, etc... But those are too simple for me. Oh no, I have something much more fun.

Genesis 1. God created the Heavens and the Earth. Four days later, he created the sun.

Now, if you're a young earth creationist, you'll have no problem with this. But if you have any concern for modern science, please tell me how you're going to explain this away? And if you are a creationist, how do you explain the contradictory order of creation is genesis 2? You see, people can interpret all they want. 'Days' can mean millions of years. "Let there be light" can be energy entering into the universe. But there's no way you can interpret "Four days later" as "30 million years before".

I won't go into more detail, the text is plain as pixels. The Bible can't make it two pages before contradicting both modern science and itself in something so as uninterpretable as order. I don't need to shore up my 'atheist doctrine'. I don't need to desperately look for reasons to disprove the bible. Christianity, and all religions, have long since proven themselves woefully inadequate. I mocked Solomon's temple for fun. Because I like to point out silly thing in religion, and because I like doing math. I can afford to be lazy because, if I'm proven wrong, it's not like there aren't much more solid complaints to level.

So, explain to me the contradictions between genesis 1 and modern cosmology, and between genesis 1 and 2. Maybe if you can justify those, I'll worry about your ability to justify everything else. As it stands, even if you could disprove my original post, I don't care. If you could disprove a hundred claimed contradictions and impossibilities, it wouldn't matter, because there are a hundred more. Disprove me on what I feel is the most unforgivable and uninterpretable piece in the bible, and we can talk further.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2011, 10:59 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Oh, he will sines. You have made the challenge! He can't resist. He has to defend or his paradigm will shift. The horse is at the gate... he will loose if he doesn't race to the last word whether it's logical or not.... here we go..... in...... 3.... 2.... 1.....

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2011, 01:04 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(06-10-2011 10:59 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  Oh, he will sines. You have made the challenge! He can't resist. He has to defend or his paradigm will shift. The horse is at the gate... he will loose if he doesn't race to the last word whether it's logical or not.... here we go..... in...... 3.... 2.... 1.....

I rather hope he does. I have absolutely no idea how he'll go about it. I've never heard this problem addressed. Probably for good reason too, because no amount of metaphor can change order. The best I can think of is something along the lines of "For god, time is all at once, so when he created the earth and then the sun, in our perspective, it appears to be the other way around." Standard theist tripe, but it's of a particularly out there brand, and then raises the question of where else the order might be wrong...

And of course the good old "You can interpret anything to mean anything, if you try hard enough."

So, Stranger, if you were going to use that tell me. I'm curious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2011, 08:27 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Just to throw more gas on the fire, here are another couple of mathematical problems found in the Bible as well.

First:
"And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children." (Exodus 12:37)

"Then he numbered the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty two: and after them he numbered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand." (1 Kings 20:15)

So within a couple hundred years the descendents of Israel go from 600,000 men (not counting women and children) to little more than 7000! Yet the narrative of the Old Testament is that they went from bondage in Egypt to the "Land of Milk and Honey" where they prospered greatly.

Next:
Ezra 2:2-63 gives a detailed census of various groups coming back from Babylonian captivity. If you add up the numbers listed they total 29,718. However, in verse 64, he gives the total as 42,360.

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2011, 07:23 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  First of all, your post did post properly. Yay!

Hello Sines, thank you for the reply. I also am glad that it posted.


(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  Right then. Of course I wasn't taking the bible seriously.

I can understand that. I understand that you view the Bible even as I view certain books, however, you keep missing the primary point I have made concerning the premise of your thread: you have made a conclusion that is based upon data that has been misinterpreted.

Rather than admit this, you still continue to justify yourself on this. I guess the cheers of your peers means more than truth. But, I understand this as well. It is done by most everyone.

Despite whether you take the word of God seriously or not, integrity should be taken seriously, and this is one thing that our nation is lacking in. The end justifies the means, regardless of truth.

(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  I didn't put too much effort into double checking the boring details because,


There is no "because" that excuses misinformation.


(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  well, it's hardly my only proof against the bible.

Be glad to look at those with you.

(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  The bible is appallingly pathetic, and years of listening to apologists try to excuse it have, rather than made me see the light, only served to highlight how morally and scientifically bankrupt it is.

Because you cannot accept that God spoke creation into existence?

All of the contradictions and refutations that I have seen so far have been the same type of "proof" that we have here with 1 Chronicles 22:14...and what it amounts to is a display of moral and scientific bankruptcy, and is opposed to that which sincere scientists seek to do: learn the truth.

(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  Now, I'm sure every atheist has a 'favorite' verse, or passage. Most seem to like the endorsement of slavery, punishment of women for not yelling loud enough while being raped, etc... But those are too simple for me. Oh no, I have something much more fun.

The record found within scripture must be viewed in context, and while context seems to be a bad word around here, no scientist would analyze data without viewing it in it's context.

We would have scientists trying to explain moon rocks by examining seashells.

To present your "findings" as you have, regardless of context, regardless of simple literary analytical skills, all to discredit the bible, well, that is not being very honest. Now, to try to redirect focus by going to another "proof," shows that you are unwilling to have honest debate and discussion.

If you view the creation as scientifically impossible...okay. Many do. Even among those who say they believe in God. But I encourage you to stick to that, rather than trying to encourage others to believe what you do...by trickery. And that is all it amounts to.

Show me where God or the bible endorses slavery.

Show me where God or the bible endorses that a woman who does not yell loud enough should be punished.

You say they are too simple for you, yet I know this latter statement deals with a passage I have addressed already. If you would like to look at it again, I will be more than happy, but I suggest you look at it closely before making vague and misleading comments.


(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  Genesis 1. God created the Heavens and the Earth. Four days later, he created the sun.

Now, if you're a young earth creationist, you'll have no problem with this. But if you have any concern for modern science, please tell me how you're going to explain this away? And if you are a creationist, how do you explain the contradictory order of creation is genesis 2? You see, people can interpret all they want. 'Days' can mean millions of years. "Let there be light" can be energy entering into the universe. But there's no way you can interpret "Four days later" as "30 million years before".

I would, even if I believed the earth (and the universe) were millions of years old, still have no problem believing that God spoke the universe into existence.

Modern science does not, in my estimation, "prove" that either the earth is billions of years old, nor that light can exist without the presence of the stars.

The term "day" has multiple uses in scripture, such as, "In the 'day' of the Lord," which speaks of a time when God intervenes in the lives of men, the "day" as opposed to the night (which is exactly as I view the account in Genesis One), as well as prophetically, like we would say, "The day that man overcomes cancer will be a glorious day." All have to be seen in the context which this word is used.

"Let there be light" refers to God's creative power, in which He speaks light into existence. In New Jerusalem, we will again see light...without the sun moon and stars:


Revelation 21:22-25
King James Version (KJV)


22And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.




Now before you chortle yourself into a tizzy, keep in mind that our "hope" of this has a parallel in the scientific realm: when death is all but possible through medical science, when man understands things that at this time puzzle him, et cetera.

The presence of light is not dependant on the sun moon and stars, even man can accomplish such an easy task as creating it apart from these...why would we think that the God Who created all would be unable to?

And what contradictions between Genesis One and Two? Genesis two gives an account of man, Adam specifically, and is parenthetical to the creation account. Chapter two would fall within Genesis 1:26-31, just like we would see a more detailed description of something given in many scientific books.


(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  I won't go into more detail, the text is plain as pixels. The Bible can't make it two pages before contradicting both modern science and itself in something so as uninterpretable as order. I don't need to shore up my 'atheist doctrine'.


No, you don't, because apparently you are selective in the data you use to reach conclusions.

But, show me the contradictions, I will be happy to look at them with you.

(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  I don't need to desperately look for reasons to disprove the bible. Christianity, and all religions, have long since proven themselves woefully inadequate. I mocked Solomon's temple for fun. Because I like to point out silly thing in religion, and because I like doing math. I can afford to be lazy because, if I'm proven wrong, it's not like there aren't much more solid complaints to level.

It is funny, Solomon's Temple is mocked, despite the fact that it was built by such unscientific barbarians. This was quite an accomplishment back then.

And just so you know, I like to point out silly things in religion too. No matter the religion. All false teachers should be exposed, so that they cannot corrupt people with their agendas and beliefs.

Again, where are the "solid complaints?"


(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  So, explain to me the contradictions between genesis 1 and modern cosmology, and between genesis 1 and 2.


What contradictions? It's funny, but I have examined these "two pages" in great detail, at least, we might say more than one who can "afford to be lazy," and I have found no contradictions.

Science has not proved God did not create the world. Are you familiar with the theory of Gravitational Time Dilation? that time speeds up, the further we get from the center of the earth? This is a theory that needs to be disproved before eggheads say dogmatically that it takes four million years for light to reach the earth. But I want to be clear, even if scientists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is true, that time speeds up as we get away from the center of the earth, it would have no bearing upon God creating the earth.

Again...lets look at the contradictions.



(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  Maybe if you can justify those,

I would have to know what "contradictions" you speak of.


(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  I'll worry about your ability to justify everything else.

Highly doubtful. You cannot even admit that the premise of this thread was misleading because it was based upon information that was improperly used as the basis for the conclusion.

Why would I think you would be honest enough to admit any other point?


(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  As it stands, even if you could disprove my original post,

I have already done that. David's mention of his preparations were thought to be the materials used in the building of the Temple. I have shown that they were not.

Is it so imortant to save face that you will not, even now, admit this? It's not that hard, Sines, look at the premise, look at the conclusion, and just admit that both were in error. You do only yourself a disservice by deflecting.

(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  I don't care.

You should. You cannot decry the false teachers of this world and then do that which they do.

(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  If you could disprove a hundred claimed contradictions and impossibilities,

Actually, I am quite sure that I can do this. Not because I am something speacial, only because I understand interpretation better than those who find contradictions. I am currently going through the "Refutations" found on the homepage, and because things are terribly busy now, I have only gotten through about twenty of them.

I am not doing this on this site, as my intent is not necessarily to try to offend or ridicule, but to just speak with those here, and find out the basis for their belief.

I will say, though, I do not think I can refute all refutations, because there are just some things hard to understand about God and the way and reason He has done some things.

(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  it wouldn't matter, because there are a hundred more.

Hundreds more...perceived. Most of the refutations I have looked at can be refuted by most laymen who understand the "scientific" process of analyzing scripture.

The refutations offered resemble the hermeneutic skills of the false teachers that are so prominently displayed by media coverage.

(06-10-2011 02:20 AM)Sines Wrote:  Disprove me on what I feel is the most unforgivable and uninterpretable piece in the bible, and we can talk further.

Could you be a little more specific? I will be glad to look at these with you.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: