Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: anti-virgin birth: I would like some input to refute this.

Expand Messages
  • Paul Leonard
    Hi Rob, Some Very good information. I hope you don t mind if I save your points as well as the links) for future use. ... From: Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
    Message 1 of 28 , Jul 24, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Rob,

      Some Very good information. I hope you don't mind if I save your points as well as the links) for future use.

      --- On Fri, 7/24/09, Robert M. Bowman, Jr. <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:

      From: Robert M. Bowman, Jr. <faithhasitsreasons@...>
      Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: anti-virgin birth: I would like some input to refute this.
      To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 12:10 PM

       

      Todd,

      I'm guessing that the Facebook group "101 Contradictions in the Bible" does not provide documentation for its claims. That's one of the main problems with this material you posted (and dozens of similar collections of claims I've seen on the Internet).

      Let me begin by directing you to a number of excellent websites that respond in detail to the "Jesus as myth" claims, including the claim that Jesus' virgin birth was borrowed from pagan mythologies:

      http://www.greatcom .org/resources/ areadydefense/ ch14/default. htm

      http://www.christia n-thinktank. com/copycat. html (several long but excellent pages)

      http://www.doxa. ws/Myth/copycat1 .html (three pages; also very good)

      http://www.rim. org/muslim/ pagannt.htm (important article by Ronald Nash, one of the best writers on this topic)

      http://www.frontlin e-apologetics. com/religions_ christianity. html (significant article by a leading New Testament scholar)

      http://www.apologet icspress. org/articles/ 156 (two lengthy pages)

      http://christopherb utler.wordpress. com/2006/ 10/07/jesus- is-not-a- mithras-redux/ (specifically on Mithraism and Christianity; if link is broken, try http://tinyurl. com/2om45t)

      http://www.carm. org/evidence/ mithra.htm (another article specifically on Mithraism and Christianity)

      http://www.johnanke rberg.org/ Articles/ _PDFArchives/ theological- dictionary/ TD4W0304. pdf (if link is broken, try http://tinyurl. com/2rwhw8)

      http://confidentchr istianity. blogspot. com/2007/ 07/resurrection- myths-vs- resurrection- of.html (an excellent short blog on the subject)

      And see the following web page for a roundup of many other relevant articles on the historical existence of Jesus, alleged pagan sources or parallels, and the like:

      http://www.christia ncadre.org/ topics/historica ljesus.html

      Now, let me comment briefly on some of the specific arguments in the material you posted.

      1. From the alleged fact (itself very much in dispute) that there were "virgin birth" stories before Jesus, it does not follow that the New Testament writers (Matthew and Luke) got their story from those earlier stories. In fact, we can be reasonably sure they did not, for two main reasons.

      a. Matthew and Luke reflect the first-century, traditional Jewish monotheistic worldview with its utter disdain for polytheistic myths. This is a crucial point, since the material you posted concedes that its view is only plausible if Gentile (non-Jewish) Christians later deified Jesus and posited a virgin birth for him. Deifying political figures was common in Greco-Roman culture; deifying religious figures was anathema in Jewish culture.

      b. Matthew and Luke's accounts of the virgin birth of Christ are suffused with allusions (as well as direct quotations, especially in Matthew) to the Old Testament, but do not contain any obvious or probable allusions to specific Greco-Roman mythologies (the only mythologies close enough to Matthew and Luke geographically and culturally to have any chance at all of being relevant).

      2. Since there are good reasons to reject the claim that the Virgin Birth story derived from pagan sources, the criticism that God's people are not to imitate the ways of the nations has no bearing on this issue.

      3. The idea of celebrating Jesus' birthday on December 25th has nothing to do with the origins of the Virgin Birth story. Christians did not start celebrating Jesus' birth on December 25th until the fourth century, three centuries after Matthew and Luke's Gospels. The NT gives no clear indication of the day or even the month of Jesus' birth (most think that Luke implies it took place in the spring, though even this is debatable). Christians settled on December 25th for Christmas in order to *replace* the pagan celebrations connected to that day (and to the winter solstice).

      4. In most if not all of the pagan stories mentioned, the mothers were not really "virgin mothers." They were sometimes virgins *until* the male deities impregnated them--which was generally described as a physical act.

      5. The author of the material you posted makes the common confusion between the medieval doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary (which is not in the NT) and the medieval doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary (which is also not in the NT). The Immaculate Conception is the doctrine that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the moment of *her* conception in her mother's womb. This is a separate idea from the idea that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born (let alone the unbiblical idea that Mary remained a virgin throughout the rest of her life).

      6. Some early church fathers, especially those steeped in Hellenistic philosophy and culture like Justin Martyr and Origen, actually played up the weak parallels between the Virgin Birth and pagan stories in order to make Christianity seem more credible -- less out of left field -- to their Gentile readers. But these comments come a century and more after Matthew and Luke, and so tells us nothing about where the story originated.

      7. There are good reasons to take the Virgin Birth accounts in Matthew and Luke seriously (although, in the nature of the case, it is probably impossible to *prove* them to be accurate).

      a. Matthew and Luke's accounts are independent of one another (as virtually all NT scholars agree).

      b. This means the story dated from earlier than either of these writings -- probably at least to the 50s, roughly 20 years after Jesus' death.

      c. Although Matthew and Luke's accounts are difficult (not impossible) to harmonize in detail, they agree on a surprisingly large number of points: that Jesus' human parents were Joseph and Mary, that Joseph was not the biological father, that Joseph and Mary were betrothed but not formally married when Mary became pregnant, that they then got married before Jesus was born, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem even though his parents lived in Nazareth, and that Jesus was born toward the end of the reign of Herod the Great. This considerable body of agreement in these independent accounts is best explained if there is at least a core element of historical truth to them.

      d. For the above reasons, an increasing number of skeptical and liberal scholars have concluded that Jesus was indeed Mary's son but not Joseph's biological offspring; these scholars reject the Virgin Birth, of course, concluding instead that Jesus was an illegitimate child. This is about as much as one could hope for avowedly non-Christian scholars to conclude. That is, they concede about as much of the factual core of the Gospel accounts as they can without conceding the Virgin Birth itself.

      In Christ's service,
      Rob Bowman

    • wglmp
      ... This site does document: 1001 Errors in the Christian Bible http://1001errors.com/ Matt
      Message 2 of 28 , Sep 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Robert M. Bowman, Jr." <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
        >
        > Todd,
        >
        > I'm guessing that the Facebook group "101 Contradictions in the Bible" does not provide documentation for its claims. That's one of the main problems with this material you posted (and dozens of similar collections of claims I've seen on the Internet). <

        This site does document:
        1001 Errors in the Christian Bible
        http://1001errors.com/

        Matt
      • faithhasitsreasons
        Matt, You cited the following website: 1001 Errors in the Christian Bible http://1001errors.com/ I m afraid many of these errors are nothing of the sort. For
        Message 3 of 28 , Sep 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Matt,

          You cited the following website:

          1001 Errors in the Christian Bible
          http://1001errors.com/

          I'm afraid many of these "errors" are nothing of the sort.

          For example, the first supposed error listed on the site is the claim that putting Matthew in front of Mark is an error because (most scholars say) Mark was written first. But this assumes the order was intended to be chronological. In the collection of Paul's epistles, Romans comes before the Corinthian epistles, but everybody in the early church understood that Paul wrote Romans after the Corinthian epistles. Not a good start.

          The site also claims that calling the first Gospel "Matthew" is a mistake because this title was added "much later." Well, how much later is now a subject of some discussion, but the trend is now to admit that it was rather sooner than many had guessed (the late Martin Hengel wrote on this subject). In any case, since the title was added later (though probably not much later), if it turned out that Matthew didn't write that Gospel this news would not contradict anything that the Gospel itself says. So the error, if there is one, is not in the text of the biblical writing itself but in the postbiblical apparatus. The author of the website does not seem to know the difference.

          The claim that the inclusion of chapter and verse divisions is another "error" is ludicrous. These are simply convenient marking points to aid in directing readers to specific locations in the text. They have no bearing on whether the Bible was originally inspired or whether its factual statements are true.

          Those are the first three errors discussed on the site, and they all demonstrate a superficiality that, frankly, is embarrassing to see. You'd have to pay me good money before I agreed to go through the other 998.

          In Christ's service,
          Rob Bowman
        • Paul Leonard
          Correct, We could just as easily do a blog called the 10001 (added zero intentional) errors in the site:http://1001errors. com/ There is a vast difference
          Message 4 of 28 , Sep 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Correct,

            We could just as easily do a blog called the 10001 (added zero intentional) errors in the site:http://1001errors. com/

            There is a vast difference between claiming something and proving it.

            --- On Tue, 9/1/09, wglmp <mtillman@...> wrote:

            From: wglmp <mtillman@...>
            Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: anti-virgin birth: I would like some input to refute this.
            To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 8:13 AM

             

            --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, "Robert M. Bowman, Jr." <faithhasitsreasons @...> wrote:
            >
            > Todd,
            >
            > I'm guessing that the Facebook group "101 Contradictions in the Bible" does not provide documentation for its claims. That's one of the main problems with this material you posted (and dozens of similar collections of claims I've seen on the Internet). <

            This site does document:
            1001 Errors in the Christian Bible
            http://1001errors. com/

            Matt

          • christian_skeptic
            ... Interesting site. He even argues for the a god translation at John 1:1 (http://1001errors.com/files/Err479-485.html) Rob, your very presence as an
            Message 5 of 28 , Sep 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "faithhasitsreasons" <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
              >
              > Matt,
              >
              > You cited the following website:
              >
              > 1001 Errors in the Christian Bible
              > http://1001errors.com/
              >
              > I'm afraid many of these "errors" are nothing of the sort.

              Interesting site. He even argues for the "a god" translation at John 1:1 (http://1001errors.com/files/Err479-485.html)

              Rob, your very presence as an "apologist" indicates there is something wrong with the Bible. For instance, Math textbooks don't need apologists. If the Bible is the greatest and most perfect book ever written this should be abundantly clear in its text.

              Heinz

              "EVERY commentary and annotation on the Bible, implicitly declares its fallibility; for if the Scriptures remained genuine and entire, they would not stand in need of commentaries and expositions, but would shine in their infallible lustre and purity without them."
              Ethan Allen
            • faithhasitsreasons
              Heinz, You wrote:
              Message 6 of 28 , Sep 5, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Heinz,

                You wrote:

                << Rob, your very presence as an "apologist" indicates there is something wrong with the Bible. For instance, Math textbooks don't need apologists. If the Bible is the greatest and most perfect book ever written this should be abundantly clear in its text. >>

                A ridiculous argument. Atheism has its "apologists" as well (e.g., Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens); does this prove that there is something wrong with atheism? Why does atheism need apologists?

                In Christ's service,
                Rob Bowman
              • Jimmy Sloan
                Even mathematics needs teachers to clear up misconceptions. ;) To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com From: faithhasitsreasons@yahoo.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009
                Message 7 of 28 , Sep 5, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Even mathematics needs teachers to clear up misconceptions. ;)


                  To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                  From: faithhasitsreasons@...
                  Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 04:59:39 +0000
                  Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: 1001 Errors in the Christian Bible

                   
                  Heinz,

                  You wrote:

                  << Rob, your very presence as an "apologist" indicates there is something wrong with the Bible. For instance, Math textbooks don't need apologists. If the Bible is the greatest and most perfect book ever written this should be abundantly clear in its text. >>

                  A ridiculous argument. Atheism has its "apologists" as well (e.g., Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens); does this prove that there is something wrong with atheism? Why does atheism need apologists?

                  In Christ's service,
                  Rob Bowman


                • christian_skeptic
                  ... Yes, but in the end there aren t differing factions over whether 1 plus 1 equals 2. Heinz
                  Message 8 of 28 , Sep 6, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Jimmy Sloan <jimmysloan@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Even mathematics needs teachers to clear up misconceptions. ;)
                    >
                    >

                    Yes, but in the end there aren't differing factions over whether 1 plus 1 equals 2.
                    Heinz
                  • christian_skeptic
                    ... Rob, there are many things wrong with Atheism. It isn t an affirmation position, it is simply a denial of a belief in gods. I belong to other atheist yahoo
                    Message 9 of 28 , Sep 6, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "faithhasitsreasons" <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Heinz,
                      >
                      > You wrote:
                      >
                      > << Rob, your very presence as an "apologist" indicates there is something wrong with the Bible. For instance, Math textbooks don't need apologists. If the Bible is the greatest and most perfect book ever written this should be abundantly clear in its text. >>
                      >
                      > A ridiculous argument. Atheism has its "apologists" as well (e.g., Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens); does this prove that there is something wrong with atheism? Why does atheism need apologists?
                      >
                      > In Christ's service,
                      > Rob Bowman
                      >

                      Rob, there are many things wrong with Atheism. It isn't an affirmation position, it is simply a denial of a belief in gods. I belong to other atheist yahoo groups where they don't like me either since I am not a Socialist like a lot of them tend to be.

                      However, atheists don't have a centralized text they adhere to, and if we had one we thought was perfect it should withstand scrutiny and shine as most evidently perfect. There would be no need for apologists of it.
                      Heinz
                    • Jimmy Sloan
                      Which only proves my point since mathematics still has mathematicians to clear up misconceptions. The obvious point here is that just because there is a need
                      Message 10 of 28 , Sep 6, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Which only proves my point since mathematics still has mathematicians to clear up misconceptions.  The obvious point here is that just because there is a need for someone to clear up misunderstandings, it does not follow that the actual thing that needs clarification is lacking in some way.  There are no factions among apologists as to whether God exists but that says very little about the truth of whether or not God exists.

                        ~ J. Sloan



                        To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                        From: christian_skeptic@...
                        Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 13:34:34 +0000
                        Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: 1001 Errors in the Christian Bible

                         
                        --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Jimmy Sloan <jimmysloan@ ...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > Even mathematics needs teachers to clear up misconceptions. ;)
                        >
                        >

                        Yes, but in the end there aren't differing factions over whether 1 plus 1 equals 2.
                        Heinz


                      • ssando2479@aol.com
                        _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologist_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologist) apologetics is a field of _Christian theology_
                        Message 11 of 28 , Sep 6, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment

                           

                           

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologist

                           apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.[1] Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, including writers such as Origen and Augustine of Hippo, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community, through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as C.S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, rhetorical persuasion and other disciplines.

                           
                          In a message dated 9/6/2009 6:50:50 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, christian_skeptic@... writes:
                           

                          --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, "faithhasitsreasons " <faithhasitsreasons @...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Heinz,
                          >
                          > You wrote:
                          >
                          > << Rob, your very presence as an "apologist" indicates there is something wrong with the Bible. For instance, Math textbooks don't need apologists. If the Bible is the greatest and most perfect book ever written this should be abundantly clear in its text. >>
                          >
                          > A ridiculous argument. Atheism has its "apologists" as well (e.g., Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens); does this prove that there is something wrong with atheism? Why does atheism need apologists?
                          >
                          > In Christ's service,
                          > Rob Bowman
                          >

                          Rob, there are many things wrong with Atheism. It isn't an affirmation position, it is simply a denial of a belief in gods. I belong to other atheist yahoo groups where they don't like me either since I am not a Socialist like a lot of them tend to be.

                          However, atheists don't have a centralized text they adhere to, and if we had one we thought was perfect it should withstand scrutiny and shine as most evidently perfect. There would be no need for apologists of it.
                          Heinz

                        • Paul Leonard
                          Yep and depending on context etc 2 + 2 could be 4 or any other number depending on the base number . Remember New math ? ... From: Jimmy Sloan
                          Message 12 of 28 , Sep 6, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Yep and depending on context etc 2 + 2 could be 4 or any other number depending on the "base number". Remember "New math"?

                            --- On Sat, 9/5/09, Jimmy Sloan <jimmysloan@...> wrote:

                            From: Jimmy Sloan <jimmysloan@...>
                            Subject: RE: [biblicalapologetics] Re: 1001 Errors in the Christian Bible
                            To: "biblicalapologetics" <biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com>
                            Date: Saturday, September 5, 2009, 10:27 PM

                             

                            Even mathematics needs teachers to clear up misconceptions. ;)


                            To: biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com
                            From: faithhasitsreasons@ yahoo.com
                            Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 04:59:39 +0000
                            Subject: [biblicalapologetic s] Re: 1001 Errors in the Christian Bible

                             
                            Heinz,

                            You wrote:

                            << Rob, your very presence as an "apologist" indicates there is something wrong with the Bible. For instance, Math textbooks don't need apologists. If the Bible is the greatest and most perfect book ever written this should be abundantly clear in its text. >>

                            A ridiculous argument. Atheism has its "apologists" as well (e.g., Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens); does this prove that there is something wrong with atheism? Why does atheism need apologists?

                            In Christ's service,
                            Rob Bowman


                          • christian_skeptic
                            ... Reply: and what are these misconceptions about math?
                            Message 13 of 28 , Sep 7, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Jimmy Sloan <jimmysloan@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > Which only proves my point since mathematics still has mathematicians to clear up misconceptions.

                              Reply: and what are these misconceptions about math?
                            • christian_skeptic
                              ... Reply: Ask anyone in the world what 2 + 2 is, and unless that person is an idiot, you will get the same answer. Only a Christian could obfuscate this
                              Message 14 of 28 , Sep 7, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Yep and depending on context etc 2 + 2 could be 4 or any other number depending on the "base number". Remember "New math"?

                                Reply: Ask anyone in the world what 2 + 2 is, and unless that person is an idiot, you will get the same answer. Only a Christian could obfuscate this point.
                              • Jimmy Sloan
                                ... Reply: and what are these misconceptions about math? That 2 + 2 = 7, that the least common denominator of 1/5, 1/6, and 1/15 is 15, that 1 is a prime
                                Message 15 of 28 , Sep 7, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment


                                  > Which only proves my point since mathematics still has mathematicians to clear up misconceptions.

                                  Reply: and what are these misconceptions about math?


                                  That 2 + 2 = 7, that the least common denominator of 1/5, 1/6, and 1/15 is 15, that 1 is a prime number, etc. But the point here is that simply because there are apologists, it does not follow that there is something lacking with what the apologist is defending.  Thanks!
                                  _

                                • Paul Leonard
                                  I think you will find it was progressives , etc that obfuscated the issue by trying to force new math on the populace and replace traditional math.
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Sep 7, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I think you will find it was "progressives", etc that obfuscated the issue by trying to force "new math" on the populace and replace traditional math. Fortunately those poor stupid parents, most of whom believed in the Bible, spoke up in great numbers against the idiocy of teaching something that was only needed in higher math classes. Oh by the way I am a Christian and took higher math classes. Strangely enough today, while I am not a nuclear scientist, or a physicist I am involved in Chemistry and the old math is just fine for that.

                                    The reason anyone in the world will answer  2 + 2 = 4 is because they "progressive" (read secular and anti Christian) ideas were tossed out. Do a little research on the subject and then criticize those stupid progressives (read secular and anti Christian dummies) over it, not Christians.

                                    --- On Mon, 9/7/09, christian_skeptic <christian_skeptic@...> wrote:

                                     

                                    --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@ ...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Yep and depending on context etc 2 + 2 could be 4 or any other number depending on the "base number". Remember "New math"?

                                    Reply: Ask anyone in the world what 2 + 2 is, and unless that person is an idiot, you will get the same answer. Only a Christian could obfuscate this point.

                                  • tcmadd2@aol.com
                                    Dear anotherpaul I was a 6th grade teacher the year the New Math was introduced in my district. The problem was not that the parents were stupid or
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Sep 7, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Dear "anotherpaul"
                                       
                                      I was a 6th grade teacher the year the "New" Math was introduced in my district.  The problem was not that the parents were "stupid" or necessarily Christian. (My school was located in a largely Jewish neighborhood. The liberal, secular Jewish parents were upset as well.)
                                       
                                      The problem with the new math was the method of implementation. Bowing to political pressure the school districts tried to reform the entire math curriculum in one big change.  Students who had never had to deal with concepts that sophisticated were now being taught mathematics in a completely new way. They could handle it, but the time devoted to set theory and operations in different bases meant that there was less time for traditional calculating skills. So, state test scores declined dramatically, which "proved" to the public that the new math "did not work".  The degree of indulgence and refusal to work hard in our public education systems were also contributory factors.
                                       
                                      The people who make the decisions in education are mostly school administrators, who are very political, and college professors. No one asked the classroom teachers about what really works with kids.
                                       
                                      Tom M.
                                       
                                       
                                      In a message dated 9/7/2009 1:11:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, anotherpaul2001@... writes:
                                       

                                      I think you will find it was "progressives" , etc that obfuscated the issue by trying to force "new math" on the populace and replace traditional math. Fortunately those poor stupid parents, most of whom believed in the Bible, spoke up in great numbers against the idiocy of teaching something that was only needed in higher math classes. Oh by the way I am a Christian and took higher math classes. Strangely enough today, while I am not a nuclear scientist, or a physicist I am involved in Chemistry and the old math is just fine for that.

                                      The reason anyone in the world will answer  2 + 2 = 4 is because they "progressive" (read secular and anti Christian) ideas were tossed out. Do a little research on the subject and then criticize those stupid progressives (read secular and anti Christian dummies) over it, not Christians.

                                      --- On Mon, 9/7/09, christian_skeptic <christian_skeptic@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                       

                                      --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@ ...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Yep and depending on context etc 2 + 2 could be 4 or any other number depending on the "base number". Remember "New math"?

                                      Reply: Ask anyone in the world what 2 + 2 is, and unless that person is an idiot, you will get the same answer. Only a Christian could obfuscate this point.

                                    • Paul Leonard
                                      Hi, I do understand. I was being a bit facetious in response to the previous writer. It is so easy to categorize a group you do not like using minimal fact and
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Sep 7, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi,

                                        I do understand. I was being a bit facetious in response to the previous writer.

                                        It is so easy to categorize a group you do not like using minimal fact and a lot of innuendo.

                                        There was so many problems with the implementation of the New Math program at all levels. The basic idea was not bad, but the means of introducing it was simply miserable. I agree it wasn't simply Christian parents that objected. Virtually every parent, or at least those with any concern about their children's education, objected. These things should be left to the educators directly involved, not administrators, college professors and politically/ideologically motivated individuals/groups.

                                        I am sure you tried but saw the same problems that everyone else did with the methodology, not the idea, of introducing new math to students.

                                        --- On Mon, 9/7/09, tcmadd2@... <tcmadd2@...> wrote:

                                         

                                        Dear "anotherpaul"
                                         
                                        I was a 6th grade teacher the year the "New" Math was introduced in my district.  The problem was not that the parents were "stupid" or necessarily Christian. (My school was located in a largely Jewish neighborhood. The liberal, secular Jewish parents were upset as well.)
                                         
                                        The problem with the new math was the method of implementation. Bowing to political pressure the school districts tried to reform the entire math curriculum in one big change.  Students who had never had to deal with concepts that sophisticated were now being taught mathematics in a completely new way. They could handle it, but the time devoted to set theory and operations in different bases meant that there was less time for traditional calculating skills. So, state test scores declined dramatically, which "proved" to the public that the new math "did not work".  The degree of indulgence and refusal to work hard in our public education systems were also contributory factors.
                                         
                                        The people who make the decisions in education are mostly school administrators, who are very political, and college professors. No one asked the classroom teachers about what really works with kids.
                                         
                                        Tom M.
                                         
                                         
                                        In a message dated 9/7/2009 1:11:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, anotherpaul2001@ yahoo.com writes:
                                         

                                        I think you will find it was "progressives" , etc that obfuscated the issue by trying to force "new math" on the populace and replace traditional math. Fortunately those poor stupid parents, most of whom believed in the Bible, spoke up in great numbers against the idiocy of teaching something that was only needed in higher math classes. Oh by the way I am a Christian and took higher math classes. Strangely enough today, while I am not a nuclear scientist, or a physicist I am involved in Chemistry and the old math is just fine for that.

                                        The reason anyone in the world will answer  2 + 2 = 4 is because they "progressive" (read secular and anti Christian) ideas were tossed out. Do a little research on the subject and then criticize those stupid progressives (read secular and anti Christian dummies) over it, not Christians.

                                        --- On Mon, 9/7/09, christian_skeptic <christian_skeptic@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                         

                                        --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@ ...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Yep and depending on context etc 2 + 2 could be 4 or any other number depending on the "base number". Remember "New math"?

                                        Reply: Ask anyone in the world what 2 + 2 is, and unless that person is an idiot, you will get the same answer. Only a Christian could obfuscate this point.

                                      • christian_skeptic
                                        Unbelievable! Again, only Christians can confuse issues like this. 2 apples and another 2 apples always made 4 apples, before and after the new math. 2 apples
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Sep 8, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Unbelievable! Again, only Christians can confuse issues like this. 2 apples and another 2 apples always made 4 apples, before and after the new math. 2 apples and another 2 apples always made 4 apples at any time in history - no one can argue this - but since you are, this shows the dangers of embracing Christianity. Something happens to an apologetic mind, you have to win the argument at all costs, even at the cost of rationality.
                                          Heinz

                                          --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > I think you will find it was "progressives", etc that obfuscated the issue by trying to force "new math" on the populace and replace traditional math. Fortunately those poor stupid parents, most of whom believed in the Bible, spoke up in great numbers against the idiocy of teaching something that was only needed in higher math classes. Oh by the way I am a Christian and took higher math classes. Strangely enough today, while I am not a nuclear scientist, or a physicist I am involved in Chemistry and the old math is just fine for that.
                                          >
                                          > The reason anyone in the world will answer� 2 + 2 = 4 is because they "progressive" (read secular and anti Christian) ideas were tossed out. Do a little research on the subject and then criticize those stupid progressives (read secular and anti Christian dummies) over it, not Christians.
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.