The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

[Belz...]

A 5% margin of measurement error is quite a bit. My understanding is that a cubit, depending on who you ask, is roughly equivalent to an english yard. That's about a foot and a half worth of rounding up.

Who cares ? The mere fact that it's either a mistake or an approximation makes it non-litteral.

 

[ChristineR]

The value of 3 is correct. As the measurements of the diameter and circumference are only given to the nearest whole cubit, the value of pi can only be calculated to the nearest whole number--3.

I'm no Biblical literalist, but this is not a Biblical error, just a technical limitation of the time the book was written.

 

[Powa]

I'm no Biblical literalist, but this is not a Biblical error, just a technical limitation of the time the book was written.

God's technical limitation?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Sorry, but this is only partly true, dogs do have emotions, they are social animals. Also I’m defending the dog, not edge.

Paul

Sure they do, but the point is that projecting human qualities onto a dog is problematic. Things that are considered rude to humans (butt- and crotch-sniffing) are polite for a dog, while things that are polite among humans (eye contact, hugging) are extremely rude in dog society.

I won't go into the problems with projecting canine and human qualities onto a hypothetical supreme being...

 

[Upchurch]

The value of 3 is correct. As the measurements of the diameter and circumference are only given to the nearest whole cubit, the value of pi can only be calculated to the nearest whole number--3.

no.... even if they were only able to measure to the nearest, the value of pi, being a ratio, need not only be calculated to the nearest whole number.

Further, if the diameter measurement were correct, the nearest whole number measurement for the circumfrance would have been 31 cubits, not 30 cubits.

 

[ChristineR]

God's technical limitation?

If I were a fundy literalist I'd go into a song and dance about how God could have done better but generously acceded to the limitations of his human followers and flubbed it up.

 

[aggle-rithm]

If I were a fundy literalist I'd go into a song and dance about how God could have done better but generously acceded to the limitations of his human followers and flubbed it up.

"He hadn't invented fractions yet."

 

[supercorgi]

Jesus is very much alive and wants very much for you to accept him. He is the way, truth and the life. You just don't see what you have been missing by rejecting him. Either way he still loves you no matter what you say.

Does KK remind anyone else of a drug dealer?

"Come on kid, just try it. It's good for you. You won't know what you're missing until you try it. It'll make life so much better. Just try a little bit."

 

[edge]

Responses like this only go to confirm my own convictions that some (not all) Christians are simply at the height of arrogance.

While you are supposed to value humility, I find none.

What tremendous ego it takes to believe that there is a supreme being who cares about the banalities of your life, yet, would allow the horrors and atrocities that occur daily in this world continue. Yes, Jesus loves you and cares about the prayers you send about your first world quality existence, while he either ignores or "says no" as some pastors would say, to the starving, the tortured, the enslaved.

I'm truly sorry that you cannot grapple with the truth of your own mortality, like everyone must. It saddens me that you believe you have a monopoly on truth, and that all religions that came before and after you (especially Judaism of the old testament, who said the Messiah would be a king who ruled on the throne of David, that he would enforce--not negate--the law, that taught human sacrifice was not an acceptable atonement for sin, and that anyone who says they are dreamers of dreams and prophecies such as PAUL were false teachers) are hogwash.

There is nothing meek about strutting your righteousness and exclusive salvation as if you can never be questioned.

I am not a "hater" or "tool of satan". I have deeply meaningful friendships with Christians of every flavor in the homeschooling community, and I spent many, many years sitting in churches with an open heart and mind. That open mind led me out of them eventually, unable to ignore the disparity and contradictions in both scripture and church goer behavior any longer.

I would certainly hope you examine the issue of ego. Not the haughty kind, but the kind that does not accept an unavoidable terminus. Look at the vastness of the world, the cultures, human behavior. Ask yourself why you are more important than anyone else, why you were "chosen" and so many have not been. When you are (hopefully) counting your "blessings" that you were born where you were, not into a hellish existence somewhere else, perhaps you can understand what I am trying to say. You are a human being like the muslim girl in the middle east who is has her throat slit by her father in an honor killing as a result of her being raped. You do not deserve heaven more than she does not deserve the hell you prescribe for her, nor the hell that was her short life. Move away from your insulated perceptions for just a moment and ponder that one. Why are you so much more important than her? (Tip: You're not)

I'm not and still I have no idea weather or not I am not going to burn.

I guess I'm not going to be a Muslim.

I wouldn't want to be her father and I have never heard of Christian father doing this to their child in this day and age.

I would have to say that a loving God would accept her.

But you see nothing that is offensive to a Christian from the skeptics’ posts?
Amazing!

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I'm not and still I have no idea weather or not I am not going to burn.

What?!?! This from the person who said on this thread:

In this day and age he shows signs to believers.
We are able to discern between the two, Satan has you so he is not going to show you anything but a believer, now that's a different story.
He has you to turn them around.

I guess I'm not going to be a Muslim.

I wouldn't want to be her father and I have never heard of Christian father doing this to their child in this day and age.

You have entirely missed the point (feigning shock). I was not saying Christian fathers did this. I was saying God the Father has allowed this. Why has YOUR lord and savior permitted her to be born into a country where the mere suggestion of preaching your gospel is cause for execution? This person was born into her country, her religion, her culture, and ultimately killed because of her religion. Your Christian god allowed this, and she will burn in hell according to your doctrine. The same goes for people born into hellish conditions all over the world. God chose to just let them be born into starvation, slavery, disease, and lets them die after living briefly and horribly.

I would have to say that a loving God would accept her.

So are you saying that she just needs to believe in the "Plan of Salvation" via accepting Jesus per new testament scripture, which would be impossible for her, or are you saying that a loving God would take her into heaven, despite it all, because she in no way warrants eternal punishment and suffering?

But you see nothing that is offensive to a Christian from the skeptics’ posts?
Amazing!

Why does it have to be either/or? Whether or not an athiest has behaved offensively (ALL people say something offensive during the years on the top side of the soil), it does not negate how offensive a statement such as the one about satan and signs to believers as I quoted above. You have basically said anyone who does not agree with you is a tool of the devil.

Now do you have something rational to add as to the perfection and accuracy of scripture......something enlightening, or is it just about you have faith, we are tools of the devil, end of story?

 

[Tanstaafl]

Does KK remind anyone else of a drug dealer?

"Come on kid, just try it. It's good for you. You won't know what you're missing until you try it. It'll make life so much better. Just try a little bit."

Well, she's certainly addicted.

But I guess it's better than what she was hooked on previously.

 

[hgc]

I would have to say that a loving God would accept her.

Why would you say that? This is getting very confusing.

Does one have to accept Jesus to get into heaven or not? If it's an open question for this exception, where are all the exceptions listed? If there is no finite list of exceptions, then we're pretty much back to square one regarding entry to heaven, aren't we? I don't actually have to be a Christian now according to you, as long as there's a loving God -- and that just goes without saying.

Well thank God for small miracles.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

He says what he feels.

He is also the most protective dog I have ever seen.

You know, if this is true, there's a million dollars you could probably win.....

Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Perhaps I missed it but I don't think any of the biblical literalists have answered my question. I will restate in more detail here:


Given those measurements, the circumference should have been 31.4 cubits, not 30 cubits. (circumference = pi x diameter) The bible either got the measurements or the value of pi wrong.

This isn't something that is ambiguous or lost in translation. These are hard numbers that literally don't add up. How can something that makes such a erroneous mathematical claim be literally true?

That's if you assume the value of pi to be accurate. It isn't, and never is..only to within a certain degree. If you round pi to one significant figure, as the other figures are, then the measurements add up.

A 5% margin of measurement error is quite a bit. My understanding is that a cubit, depending on who you ask, is roughly equivalent to an english yard. That's about a foot and a half worth of rounding up.

It all depends on the use for which you put the measurement to. When teaching astronomy, it's enough for me to tell my students that the moon is 250,000 miles away. To land a probe there, however, I'd have to know that it's 249,942.63 miles away. Which number is right? Does it matter that the "actual" measurement is 249,942.634567 miles? Don't forget that there's always error built in, and you have to decide where to round off depending on a) your measuring tools, and b) your use for the measurement.

The value of 3 is correct. As the measurements of the diameter and circumference are only given to the nearest whole cubit, the value of pi can only be calculated to the nearest whole number--3.

I'm no Biblical literalist, but this is not a Biblical error, just a technical limitation of the time the book was written.

God's technical limitation?

no.... even if they were only able to measure to the nearest, the value of pi, being a ratio, need not only be calculated to the nearest whole number.

Further, if the diameter measurement were correct, the nearest whole number measurement for the circumfrance would have been 31 cubits, not 30 cubits.

I still don't see how you get this. Diameter=10. Pi=3. Circumference =30. No troubles.


All this proves is that the bible was written by poets and lawmakers, rather than mathematicians and scientists.

 

[Upchurch]

I still don't see how you get this. Diameter=10. Pi=3. Circumference =30. No troubles.

This assumes they knew the value of pi and one of the measurements and calculated the other measurement. It's much more likely that they made both measurements and simply didn't address the unlikely ratio those two measurements make. This is supported by the fact that they reported the measurements and not the ratio.

 

[ChristineR]

no.... even if they were only able to measure to the nearest, the value of pi, being a ratio, need not only be calculated to the nearest whole number.

Further, if the diameter measurement were correct, the nearest whole number measurement for the circumfrance would have been 31 cubits, not 30 cubits.

Not necessarily. If the diameter were 9.7 (and the thing really was a perfect circle) the circumference would be 30.473448739820994413087640817811. To the nearest cubit that's 10 and 30.

The built in error in two numbers is not lessened when you multiply them--it's actually doubled. Here's where I wish I knew how to do fancy HTML.

Say the measurement error on x is dx, so the true value of x is between (x-dx) and (x+dx). Likewise for y.

(x+dx)(y+dy) = xy + 2dx * dy + (dx * dy)

In this case dx = dy = .5 cubits. The last term is second order in dx, so it can be considered insignificant relative to the other terms.

so d(x+y) = 2dx = 1 cubit

As it is, this is a worst case scenario, and the actual error in the measurements must have less.

 

[Upchurch]

Not necessarily. {snip}

All right, I'll concede the point. However, it still shows biblical interpretation.

 

[ChristineR]

All right, I'll concede the point. However, it still shows biblical interpretation.

This is what I do for a living, so I'm overly picky.

In another context, this could be part of a discussion why the Bible is not all that useful a guide for the twenty-first century. But the topic is (or was) literal truth of the Bible and on this particular point the Bible is inadequate, but not untrue.

Stick to Joseph's father if you're looking for bald and inexplicable error.

 

[Moochie]

Who cares ? The mere fact that it's either a mistake or an approximation makes it non-litteral.

I won't take it litorally, then.

M.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm no Biblical literalist, but this is not a Biblical error, just a technical limitation of the time the book was written.

Not of the time - Egyptian and Babylonian culture had knowledge of fractions, and a good understanding of pi. The Biblical writers were the ones with a limited understanding of the real world.

 

[jsfisher]

Say the measurement error on x is dx, so the true value of x is between (x-dx) and (x+dx). Likewise for y.

(x+dx)(y+dy) = xy + 2dx * dy + (dx * dy)

I realize that this is in line with a grammatical quibble, but

(x+dx) * (y+dy) = xy + xdy + ydx + dxdy,

not the ...+ 2dxdy +... shown.

On the other hand, if you switch from "absolute error" to "relative error", you get

(1+dx')x * (1+dy')y = (1 + dx' +dy' +dx'dy')xy

Now, if the relative error is "reasonably small" then the dx'dy' term is very, very small and can be ignored, in which case the relative error for a product is (approximately) equal to the sum of the relative errors.