Math is objective the bible is subjective.

[DanieltheDragon]

Often it is said the bible is objective and true. Yet how can that be if it can be interpreted?
For debate is which is objective among between this equation and this passage?

2+2=4

Vs

Genesis 1King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

[WinePusher]

Often it is said the bible is objective and true. Yet how can that be if it can be interpreted?
For debate is which is objective among between this equation and this passage?

2+2=4

Vs

Genesis.

First, there is much more to mathematics than 2+2=4. The entire body of mathematics is based on axioms (otherwise known as postulates). You used the example of 2+2=4 which is an arithmetic operation that comes from the Peano axioms. Additionally, the entirety of Euclidean geometry comes from the subjective acceptance of the Euclid's 5th postulate, the parallel postulate. If we arbitrarily drop the parallel postulate then that gives rise to a whole new field of geometry, namely hyperbolic and elliptic geometry.

So obviously all these mathematical axioms are true, they just may not be objectively true.

Second, when trying to discern anything about the past all we can do is speak in terms of likelihood. It's very likely that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was died by crucifixion, and it's very unlikely that God flooded the entire planet saving only Noah and his family. Nothing in any historical text can be considered an objective truth, including the Bible.

[Divine Insight]

First, there is much more to mathematics than 2+2=4.

I agree with Winepusher. To even suggest that mathematics can be reduced to something like 2+2=4 is utterly absurd.

Moreover, even 2+2=4 is meaningless objectively speaking until you've clarified precisely what things you are quantifying. Do 2 birds plus 2 fish = 1 elephant? I think not. The very concept of a totally abstract notion of 2+2=4 as being considered objective is highly questionable, IMHO.

I have many bones to pick with our mathematical formalism, and trying to reduce it to something as elementary as 2+2=4 grossly ignores many deeply problematic concepts within the formalism.

Moreover, what's the point in comparing this with the Biblical stories of Genesis?

Does mathematics fundamentally claim that there is no God?

Where is this stated in any Mathematical axiom or theorem?

Since when are mathematics and the Bible in competition?

Mathematics does not support atheism.

Moreover, does one even truly need to resort to comparing the Bible with mathematics to reveal how utterly absurd it is on a fundamental level?

It seems to me that to even suggest that something like science or mathematics should be required to dismiss the Biblical thesis is to actually give the Bible way more credit than it merits in the first place.

Doesn't the Bible discredit itself via it's own self-contradictions and extreme absurdities all on its own?

Does anyone need to appeal to mathematics or science to dismiss Greek Mythology?

And if not, then why should this be required to dismiss the Bible?

[Zzyzx]

.

Second, when trying to discern anything about the past all we can do is speak in terms of likelihood. It's very likely that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was died by crucifixion, and it's very unlikely that God flooded the entire planet saving only Noah and his family. Nothing in any historical text can be considered an objective truth, including the Bible.

I agree on all three points.

In terms of likelihood, it seems likely that someone like the Jesus depicted in the NT existed, was a preacher, and was executed. It seems less likely that he was super-human (since there are only unverifiable stories that make such claims).

The Bible God seems as likely to exist as other of the thousands of gods proposed (and maybe more likely than some described). Again, verifiable evidence is scant to non-existent. Therefore, claims of knowledge (if made) about such supernatural entities are suspect at best.

I would not be surprised if there was something supernatural, but I consider it unlikely that anyone (ancient or modern) has knowledge of such things.

[bluethread]

Often it is said the bible is objective and true. Yet how can that be if it can be interpreted?
For debate is which is objective among between this equation and this passage?

2+2=4

Vs

Genesis.

First, there is much more to mathematics than 2+2=4. The entire body of mathematics is based on axioms (otherwise known as postulates).

An even simpler example is that 2+2=4 does not preclude 2+3=10, depending on how one interprets numerals. If one does not "believe in" 5, that would be the case.

[DanieltheDragon]

Often it is said the bible is objective and true. Yet how can that be if it can be interpreted?
For debate is which is objective among between this equation and this passage?

2+2=4

Vs

Genesis.

First, there is much more to mathematics than 2+2=4. The entire body of mathematics is based on axioms (otherwise known as postulates). You used the example of 2+2=4 which is an arithmetic operation that comes from the Peano axioms. Additionally, the entirety of Euclidean geometry comes from the subjective acceptance of the Euclid's 5th postulate, the parallel postulate. If we arbitrarily drop the parallel postulate then that gives rise to a whole new field of geometry, namely hyperbolic and elliptic geometry.

So obviously all these mathematical axioms are true, they just may not be objectively true.

Second, when trying to discern anything about the past all we can do is speak in terms of likelihood. It's very likely that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was died by crucifixion, and it's very unlikely that God flooded the entire planet saving only Noah and his family. Nothing in any historical text can be considered an objective truth, including the Bible.

I agree with everything you said and admit maybe 2+2 isn't the best example. In the most general of senses I was trying to attempt to show the difference between objective and subjective. The point I was trying to make is what you wrote in the bold so I have no real disagreements with what you put down(sans the likelihood of Jesus)

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

Why did you quote Genesis? What is the link between the quotation and your point?

Clarification appreciated.


JW

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

Not trying to reduce things to 2+2=4. Nor am I claiming math supports atheism. Simply pointing out that maybe the bible is not quote as objective as some of its proponents make it out to be.

If we cannot even agree in the objectivity of 2+2=4 then how can we make the argument that the bible is?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

Why did you quote Genesis? What is the link between the quotation and your point?

Clarification appreciated.


JW

Because some people claim the Genesis account is literal and some claim it is a metaphor. This is just in my opinion a very obvious example of the subjective nature of the bible. Frankly though any verse will do though. There is very little if anything objective about the bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 9 by DanieltheDragon]

Okay, I thought it was to discuss Genesis. My bad.

Regards,

JW