The Bible and Math is awesome

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 53
Topic's author
#1
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
The Bible is so good and intelligent,it has to prove that there is a God, and Mathematics prove it

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."PSALM 12:

The number 7 and multiples thereof play a significant role in biology (the gestation periods of mammals, the incubation periods of birds, and the development of insects can all be measured in multiples of seven days); in chemistry (seven periods in the periodic table of elements); in music (the seven steps of the octave); in our calendar (seven days in the week); and in light (the seven colours of the rainbow). After these discoveries were made, those scientists claimed that they were merely finding out the physical laws and patterns which our Creator had already designed (ROMANS 1:20).

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." GENESIS 1:1


The Hebrew sentence consists of exactly 7 words, which have exactly 28 (4x7) letters. There are 3 nouns: God, heaven and earth. If we add together the numerical value of each of the letters in these three Hebrew nouns, we get exactly 777 (111x7). The numerical value of the Hebrew word "created" is 203 (29x7). The first three words contain the subject, with exactly 14 (2x7) letters, and the four remaining words contain the object with also exactly 14 letters. The Hebrew words for heaven and earth have 7 letters each. The value of the first, the two middle and the last letters in the sentence is 133 (19x7). The total value of the first and last letter of every word in the verse is 1,393 (199x7). The value of the first and last letter of the first and last word in this verse is 497 (71x7). The value of the first and last letter of each word in-between is 896 (128x7).
Trippy,right

#2
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Fairy tale.


Topic's author
#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@disgusted
you completely missed the point
#4
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
ahhhhhh nope, the whole point is that the silly book of fiction is meaningless.
Topic's author
#5
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@disgusted
The point was that the Bible and mathematics support a very holy and brilliant book
#6
Harikrish
Harikrish's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 550
2
1
3
Harikrish's avatar
Harikrish
2
1
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The point was that the Bible and mathematics support a very holy and brilliant book

The bible does not meet the math and science requirement of a 4th grader.

Christians  struggle to explain what is the lengeth of a day in Genesis. Is it a 24 hour day, is a 1000 years equal to a day or a billion years equal to a day? 
Topic's author
#7
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Harikrish
I don't like you, what you do on DDO is sick. 


The bible does not meet the math and science requirement of a 4th grader.
Evidence? I have proved that is not the case


Christians  struggle to explain what is the lengeth of a day in Genesis. Is it a 24 hour day, is a 1000 years equal to a day or a billion years equal to a day? 
Ok and, people can believe in different things and be accepted by God, hence why there are Catholics, Protestants, Baptists,etc
#8
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
-->
@Dr.Franklin
2 Samual 24:9
Israel had 800,000 fighting men
Judea had 500,000

1 Chronicles 21:5
Israel had 1,100,000
Judea had 470,000

In the Bible:
3=1 (Trinity)
1=1000 (Days)

I just thought of this. If we ignore all of the times the Bible gets it wrong, it would be right 100% of the time.
Topic's author
#9
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@croweupc
 In the report in 2 Samuel, the number of men of valor who drew the sword was 800,000, but did not include the standing army of 288,000 described in 1 Chronicles 27:1–15, or the 12,000 specifically attached to Jerusalem described in 2 Chronicles 1:14. Including these figures gives the grand total of 1,100,000 men of valor who composed the entire army of the men of Israel. The figure of 470,000 in 1 Chronicles 21 did not include the 30,000 men of the standing army of Judah mentioned in 2 Samuel 6:1. This is evident from the fact that the Chronicler points out that Joab did not complete the counting of the men of Judah (1 Chron. 21:6). Both calculations are correct according to the groups which were included and excluded from each report. Please understand the context next time

In the Bible:
3=1 (Trinity)
1=1000 (Days)
Evidence and what's your point
#10
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
First I will point out that chapter 21 is about the census of able men who can fight and chapter 27 of 1 Chronicles is about active men month by month. Two separate numbers about two different groups, active versus able. 2 Chronicles 1 is under King Solomon, so this would be some time after King Davids census. Please understand the context next time!
Topic's author
#11
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@croweupc
did not include the standing army of 288,000 described in 1 Chronicles 27:1–15, or the 12,000 specifically attached to Jerusalem

The figure of 470,000 in 1 Chronicles 21 did not include the 30,000 men of the standing army of Judah mentioned in 2 Samuel 6:1.
#12
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
The 30,000 in 2 Samuel 6:1 is how many men King David took to bring back the Ark. You talk about out of context, this is most certainly out of context. You cannot just take numbers from other parts of the book and add them together like that and call it good. These events didn’t happen at the same time. It contains years of King Davids reign into account. These numbers you are putting together are not connected.
Topic's author
#13
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@croweupc
These numbers you are putting together are not connected.

So how do they contradict?
#14
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God sent Gad, to threaten David with how many years of famine?
2 Samuel 24:13: SEVEN years of famine.
1 Chron.: 21:12: THREE years of famine.

When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
1 Chron. 18:4: David took SEVEN THOUSAND horsemen
2 Samuel  8:4: David took  ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED horsemen

How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?
I Kings 4:26: FORTY THOUSAND
2 Chron. 9:25: FOUR THOUSAND

The Temple contained how many baths?
1 Kings 7:26: TWO THOUSAND baths.
2 Chron. 4:5: THREE THOUSAND baths

How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
2 Kings 24:8: EIGHTEEN years of age
2 Chron. 36:9: EIGHT years of age

Topic's author
#15
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Stronn
Samual and Chronicles are different look at point above
Topic's author
#16
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Stronn
2 Samuel 24:13: SEVEN years of famine.
1 Chron.: 21:12: THREE years of famine.

Regarding 2 Samuel 24:13, many English translations follow the Septuagint by using “three” in place of “seven.” If this were the original reading, then we would have an example of a copyist error. It is possible for copyist errors to have crept into some documents, and since the doctrine of inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts, such errors would have no impact on this crucial doctrine.
Not surprisingly, some critics of biblical authority present this apparent incongruity as evidence confirming their pre-committed disbelief in the inerrancy and divine inspiration of Scripture. Others cite this to justify their claim that modern copies of the biblical texts insufficiently represent the original manuscripts.
In reality, these accusations of corruption are unwarranted, and there are at least a couple of plausible solutions that do not appeal to a copyist error.
The key lies in understanding the greater context of the account. Let us first consider a verse that precedes the account in 2 Samuel:
Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, “It is because of Saul and his bloodthirsty house, because he killed the Gibeonites.” (2 Samuel 21:1)
Clearly, Israel had already experienced three years of famine before David numbered the people of Israel and Judah—for reasons unrelated to the situation in question. 2 Samuel 24:1–7 record the initiation of the census, but we find in verse 8 that “when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.”
So according to the text, numbering the people was nearly a year-long process, and there is no clear indication that God had suspended the initial three-year famine prior to the events in chapter 24. Now if God had combined three additional years of famine (1 Chronicles 21:12) with the three years of initialfamine, and a possible intervening year while the census was conducted, the resulting overall famine would have totaled about seven years (2 Samuel 24:13).
Some Christians have proposed another solution. They claim that these two passages describe the prophet Gad confronting David on two different occasions. According to this view, the “seven year” proposal was initially given four years prior to the “three year” proposal. Thus, the prophet would have confronted David and given him a few years to mull over his decision. During that time, David had repented of his actions so God reduced the time of punishment—something God definitely has the authority to do. A problem with this view is that if God reduced the seven years to three years because of David’s repentance, then why didn’t He reduce the length of the other options as well? So while this solution may seem less likely, it still provides another reasonable explanation.



Topic's author
#17
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Stronn
1 Chron. 18:4: David took SEVEN THOUSAND horsemen
2 Samuel  8:4: David took  ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED horsemen


We can take two steps to solve this mystery. The first step is to understand that horsemen and footmen were not exclusive categories, but that horsemen were a subset of footmen. Soldiers who were trained to ride horses were usually trained first as ground infantry just as armored vehicle operators of the USA Marines are all initially trained as ground infantry. There is a clear example of this double role elsewhere in scripture. 2 Samuel 10:18 describes a battle where David slew “forty thousand horsemen” of the Syrians (KJV, NASB, ESV). 1 Chronicles 19:18, describing the same event, says that David slew “forty thousand footmen” of the Syrians (KJV, NASB, ESV). 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 read together suggest that the horsemen and the footmen were the same men just described differently. There were not 80,000 men in total but rather 40,000 men who took on double roles as horsemen and footmen. Hence in the case of the Syrians the subset (40,000 horsemen) occupied the entire set (40,000 footmen). Going back to the battle against Hadarezer, when 2 Samuel 8:4 says that there were “seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen,” there were not 20,700 men in total, but rather 20,000 men of which 700 were considered horsemen by the author of 2 Samuel. Likewise, when 1 Chronicles 18:4 says that there were “seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen,” there were not 27,000 men in total, but rather 20,000 men of which 7000 were considered horsemen by the author of 1 Chronicles. Listed categories that are connected by the conjunction "and" do not have to be exclusive categories. For example, the Bible often uses the phrase "Judah and Jerusalem" even though Jerusalem is part of Judah. Listed categories that are connected by "and" can overlap in what they refer to. Thus "x horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen" means that there were x number of entities that qualified as horsemen and twenty thousand entities that qualified as horsemen, not that there were two exclusive categories of horsemen and footmen.

The second step to solving the mystery is to see that the difference between 700 and 7000 horsemen is due to “horsemen” being a floating label. The designation, “horsemen” is a floating label because it attaches when a man is on a horse, and could detach when a man is no longer on a horse. Chariots can always be called “chariots” (thus 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles both agree that there were a thousand chariots). Footmen can also always be called “footmen” since all chariot riders are trained with the basics of ground infantry (thus 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles both agree that there were 20,000 footmen). However, horsemen are not always horsemen. If at the start of battle there were 7000 men on horses, one historian can say that David captured 7000 horsemen in battle. However, if at the end of the battle 6300 horses go out of commission and only 700 men remain on horses, then another historian can say that David captured 700 horsemen in battle. The discrepancy in numbers is due to the different perspectives of the historians. The author of 1 Chronicles still referred to the men who lost their horses as "horsemen" whereas the author of 2 Samuel only referred to the men still on horses as "horsemen." This discrepancy could have arisen if the historian of 1 Chronicles got his number from a headcount of horsemen prior to battle (as the two sides squared off against each other) and the historian of 2 Samuel got his number from a post-battle headcount. Both accounts are correct according to their own perspectives. There is evidence that different historical sources were used in the two books. For example, as mentioned earlier, the superficial difference between 2 Samuel 10:18 (“forty thousand horsemen”) and 1 Chronicles 19:18 (“forty thousand footmen”) demonstrates that one account is not a mere duplicate of the other.

Topic's author
#18
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Stronn
I Kings 4:26: FORTY THOUSAND
2 Chron. 9:25: FOUR THOUSAND
Typo, KJV fixed it

Topic's author
#19
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Stronn
1 Kings 7:26: TWO THOUSAND baths.
2 Chron. 4:5: THREE THOUSAND baths
The two verses do not contradict.  What we have here are two descriptions that are not mutually exclusive.  If the container held 3000 baths at a certain point in time, then surely there was a point during its filling when it held 2000 baths.  Neither 1 Kings 7:26 nor 2 Chronicles 4:5 purport to provide the upper limit of the capacity.  When the historian of 1 Kings 7:26 observed the container, it held 2000 baths.  When the historian of 2 Chronicles 4:5 observed the container, it held 3000 baths.

Topic's author
#20
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Stronn
2 Kings 24:8: EIGHTEEN years of age
2 Chron. 36:9: EIGHT years of age
The KJV follows the Masoretic reading. Most modern translators speculate that the Masoretic text is in error, seeing that 2 Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign. However, there is no error in the Masoretic text. Jehoiachin became co-regent with his father Jehoiakim over Judah at age eight (2 Chronicles 36:9) and became the ruler “in Jerusalem” at age eighteen (2 Kings 24:8). The young age at which Jehoiachim became co-regent is not surprising, since his father’s interest would have been to secure an heir in the face of imminent Babylonian invasion. Jehoiachin’s co-regency of ten years corresponds perfectly with his father Jehoiakim’s reign of eleven years (2 Chronicles 36:5). Moreover, as soon as the Babylonian invasion looms into the picture, Chronicles begins to use the phrase, “king over Judah and Jerusalem” (2 Chronicles 36:4, 10). The phrase is never used in Kings or in Chronicles prior to the Babylonian invasion. Prior to the Babylonian invasion, there was no need to differentiate the king of Jerusalem from the king of Judah. However, as the Babylonians came and instituted their rule, the king of Jerusalem was no longer the default king of the rest of Judah. Thus, Chronicles begins to use the phrase “king over Judah and Jerusalem” to indicate a ruler who reigned over both Jerusalem and Judah. This point is significant in regards to ascertaining the total length of Jehoiachin’s time in office. Although 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 say that he reigned “in Jerusalem” for three months, that does not exclude the possibility of him co-reigning over Judah for the past ten years. Since his father was the sole regent over Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar’s regime (2 Kings 24:1), Jehoiachin did not have authority over Jerusalem despite having co-regency over Judah. The seeming contradiction between 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 is a testament of the confusing political scene of the time rather than an error in the Masoretic text.
#21
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
The Bible is full of these contradictions. It would seem no matter how many you show the Christian apologists will find some way to make it agree.

For instance:
Matt 27:6-8
This account has the chef priests buying the field with the money Judas threw at them. The field was named the field of blood because the money was used to arrest Jesus and was considered blood money. Judas hangs himself.

Acts 1:18-19
This account however has Judas buying the field and spilling his intestines and blood on it and that is why it is known as the field of blood.

When people start with the conclusions first, they will always end up at the answers they want. You have to start with the conclusion that the Bible is inerrant in order to make these verses non-contradictory. The lengths people go to try and keep it inerrant is astonishing.
#22
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@croweupc
Talk about plagiarism!


One should at least acknowlege the source.

#23
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
-->
@keithprosser
good ol’ copy and paste!
#24
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@croweupc
I note a great many Bible conrradictions concern Chronicles.

The theory I favour is that Chronicles is a re-write of the material in the earlier OT books.   The writer of Chronicles (often called 'The Chronicler') seems to have been unable to resist the temptation to exaggerate some of the numbers to make the iconic and semi-legendary kings of Hebrew histrory (Solomon and David) appear even more glorious than in the old legends.  His enlarged numbers and other changes never serve to dimish the picture of Hebrews or their great kings so they aren't random errors.

The differences in the portryal of David in Chronicles and the early books is also worth noting.   For example In 2 Samuel David has the husband of Bathsheeba (Uriah the Hittite) by whom he has a child killed.  The Chronicler completely omits that blemish on David's character.in his account.

Of course nobody knows exactly why the Chronicler wrote his book but there are plenty of theories.  But whatever his reasons, he purposely 'tweaked' the old stories.     



#25
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@croweupc
It's ok to use the internet for research, but not to pass off entire posts as if they are out of your own head.

I think 'Dr' Franklin isn't worth engaging with - I doubt he has any original ideas of his own.  
Topic's author
#26
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@keithprosser
I was too lazy, 
Topic's author
#27
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@croweupc
Acts 1:18 describes what occurred after Judas hanged himself in Matthew 27:5. His body began to decay as it hung from the rope. Eventually, his corpse fell, and “burst asunder” when it hit the ground—he literally burst apart.

#28
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
-->
@keithprosser
I agree.

 I have no problem with people referencing, I do from time to time, but most people tend not to think about the issues independently first. I can think much deeper about a topic if I do not start by reading others opinions first. This, of course, is just my opinion.

Topic's author
#29
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@croweupc
#30
croweupc
croweupc's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 57
0
0
4
croweupc's avatar
croweupc
0
0
4
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You just proved my point. No matter what errors are in the Bible, you refuse to acknowledge them. There is no way you would cut this much slack for any other source. You have to bend over backwards and it still does not make sense. As I pointed out, the reason for it being called the field of blood  is deferent. I don’t think apologists are not smart, quite the opposite, the smarter they are the more clever their narrative. What I do not think you understand is if you did not believe the Bible was inerrant, you would have automatically concluded that these two accounts were contradictions. It is only out of necessity that you have them agree. These accounts were written by two different authors, and they have two separate conclusions.