The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation

I would like to begin by addressing my opponents claim that I attacked him in person and that I made misleading arguments. I don’t believe I made an Ad Hominem argument, and my opponent even stated that I attacked him due to “claiming falsely” that he was begging the question. Based on my opponents previous argument, I can justify my claim that he is begging the question, which will relieve myself of this claim of attack/misleading arguments made by my opponent. Genesis 1:1 - Begging the Question Firstly, I will bring up a quote from my opponent in his previous argument: “1581.13883 is introduced---or the sqrt of 2500000. I figured it unnecessary to explain that only Heavens and Earth arepresent as of yet (as creations by God)” So in other words, my opponent must have came up with this number himself, independently of the text. This also answers one of my demonstration points: “1. His choice for an initial magnitude in the first verse is justified”. Since he hasn’t yet explained where this initial magnitude came from in the text, it has not yet been justified. It is not a valid reason to simply state it is unnecessary to explain it, as we are focusing on interpreting the text. Until my opponent can justify his choice of initial magnitude in accordance to Genesis 1:1, I will have to assume he simply made up the number himself. Following on from this, if my opponent did make up this number, and this number just seems to fit with his following claims(as my opponent and myself have shown) then he is begging the question. He has come up with a premise in order to fit his conclusion/s. Furthermore, I can strengthen my argument for my opponent begging the question. In my opponents previous argument, he also states the following: “The magnitude does refer to size and in fact is the tangent (plane, line, etc.) of the sphere or dome. There is actually morethan one possible interpretation, so I left it alone.”. The idea of a sphere/dome does not appear until Genesis 1:6, therefore by stating that it is the magnitude of the sphere or dome, he has shown yet again that he is begging the question. He has come up with a number, calling it the magnitude, in order to fit with his following sphere/dome interpretation. In order for my opponent to show that he is not begging the question, he must answer the following two questions: 1. Where does your initial magnitude from Genesis 1:1 come from in reference to the text? 2. Where in Genesis 1:1-5 do you interpret that you need a magnitude for a sphere or dome that appears in Genesis 1:6. If my opponent fails to answer these questions, which if answered properly will disprove an initial premise formed to meet his conclusion, then my opponent is still begging the question. This renders his argument a bad argument. Genesis 1:2 – The Division Operator In my round one argument, I made the claim that my opponent introduced a division operator in order to “divide the earth by darkness”. My claim was that this did not following from any interpretation of the text. My opponent then claimed in his argument that the obviousness of the division operator is apparent by the mention of a numerator and denominator. Whilst my opponent is correct in that by specifying his two symbols as numerator and denominator, you naturally have a division, this does not answer my question. Why do you divide the earth by the darkness? Where in the text does it state that the earth must be divided by the darkness, in a mathematically sense where you try to fit multiple occurrences of darkness into the earth. Unless my opponent can provide a reason to how he interpreted the text like this, my claim still stands, maintaining Genesis 1:2 as an inaccurate interpretation. Genesis 1:3 - The necessity of the Epsilon constant In my opponents video, the constant of permittivity of free space was placed into the magnitude as he claimed it was necessary in order to introduce the constant of light. My opponent reiterated this in his previous argument. I made the argument that nowhere in the text is this necessity apparent, as the constant of light fully encapsulates light itself. My opponent defended himself by stating the following: “Defining what epsilon symbolizes in existence is rendered mysterious and unnecessary as the math is consistent withoutit. But we do know what epsilon is in physics. Since I am the one to apply light in the equation,…” As I see it, my opponent states that we do not need to define what the epsilon constant symbolizes in existence and makes the conclusion that it can be rendered unnecessary. My opponent is correct when he says this, however he has included it as an interpretation of Genesis 1:3. Because he is interpreting the text, he must derive his necessity of an additional constant from somewhere in the text. Therefore, if my opponent states you can’t define what the epsilon symbolises, how can he include it in his interpretation? Furthermore, my opponent also states that we don’t need to know what the epsilon symbolises as the maths is consistent without out. So my opponent is stating the numerical value of the constant is consistent with the maths, so we don’t need to justify where the epsilon came from or what it means. This simply strengthens my argument for begging the question, as my opponent seems to have used the epsilon to keep his maths consistent. Summary I have not introduced any further arguments this round as I don’t believe it is necessary. As I stated previously, because my opponents “maths” is progressive, the inaccuracies of interpretation in these initial verses most likely introduce an element of inaccuracy in all following verses, therefore rendering the entire interpretation inaccurate. In addition to this, my opponent did not address all of my arguments. The arguments that he did not answer include: 1. My opponents separation of light from darkness in Genesis 1:4 2. Why my opponent is able to use the value of mathematical constants in his interpretation and where in the text did he get these values from? 3. Why my opponents mathematical formula do not cover every element of text in each verse My opponent must also answer the following arguments I made in this round. These have been simplified for the purpose of listing, however all arguments below were made earlier in this round: 1. How is my opponents choice of initial magnitude justified in reference to the text(Genesis 1:1) 2. How is my opponents choice to divide the earth by the darkness justified in reference to the text(Genesis 1:2) 3. How is my opponents choice of including an epsilon, which he claims a necessity to introduce the constant of light, justified in reference to the text(Genesis 1:3) Until my opponent can properly answer all the arguments that I have made, or prove my arguments are false, invalid or bad arguments, I stand by the conclusion that my opponents interpretation of Genesis Chapter One is inaccurate.