One of the primary challenges of the Christian apologist is attempting to refute the claims of the skeptic pertaining to the inerrancy of the Bible.

As a Christian, I believe that it is perfect in form and function, just as God says it is. Historical and archeological findings have only bolstered this belief, as they consistently corroborate the information provided in the Bible. It is simply a matter of education (or lack thereof) that prevents a reader from understanding it's infallability.

Because of this belief, I have decided to refute a common claim; the Bible incorrectly calculates the value of Pi in 1 Kings 7:23.

That said, on with the show.



* ~ * ~ *



1 Kings 7:23-26 - "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. 24 Below the rim, gourds encircled it — ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.

25 The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. 26 It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths."

From the Jewish Bible:

"He made the cast metal "Sea" circular, seventeen-and-a-half feet from rim to rim, eight-and-three quarter feet high and fifty-two-and-a-half feet in circumference."

***(52.5/17.5) still = 3***

"Under its rim, three hundred gourds encircled it in two rows; they were cast when the Sea was cast.

It rested on twelve oxen, three looking north, three looking west, three looking south, and three looking east, all with their hindquarters toward the center. The Sea was set on top of them.

It was a handbreadth thick, its rim was made like the rim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; and its capacity was 11,000 gallons."

quote:For those that consider these verses proof that the Bible is fallible, please review the following website for a logical, mathematical explanation of why that assumption is incorrect:

ON THE RABBINICAL EXEGESIS OF AN ENHANCED BIBLICAL VALUE OF PI (http://tinyurl.com/s8l5q).



According to my Strong's Concordance, the following units of measurement in Hebrew are:

- 1 Handbreadth = 3 inches

- 1 Cubit = 1.5 feet

- 1 Bath = 6 gallons

This means that the bath was 15 feet from rim to rim, 45 feet in circumference, and 7.5 feet tall.

When plotted, this does not make a perfect circle.

quote:

For any circle, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is pi, meaning:

c / d = pi

In this circle:

c = 45

d = 15

meaning,

45 / 15 = 3

3 /= pi

Therefore this cannot be a circle.



The author of the scripture described it as "circular", not "a perfect circle."

This exposes a flaw in the logic on the part of the skeptic, since they have falsely assumed that the scripture gives information that it clearly does not.

The author of 1 Kings (whom Jews believe to be Jeremiah) was not trying to prove that Pi was anything, let alone 3. Nor was it implied that the term "circular" represented a perfect circle, which you'd have to assume if you're going to claim that this scripture contains a mathematical flaw, thus disproving Biblical inerrancy.

The burden of proof is on the skeptic. Claims of factual inaccuracy are dubious at best, since I did a simple internet search and found an explanation of the mathematics of the scripture in 1 Kings easily.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 03-20-2006).]

Unfortunately, I don't base my disbelief in God on the mathematics displayed in the Bible.

If I was so fascinated with geometry that I'd base my belief system on such, I'd probably join Neopythagoreanism instead of Christianity.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

That wasn't the point of this thread.

The point is, the math given in 1 Kings 7:23 doesn't prove that the Bible is fallible, because the math is not trying to prove that pi=3.

This gives the skeptic one less reason to disbelieve in God, since the Bible is the only tangible proof we have of His existence, aside from creation itself.

If it is perfect, as He says it is, there is no reason to disbelieve God, because the proof is in the pudding.

You could willfully reject Him, but to disbelieve based on the Bible's fallibility is not possible, because it is inerrant.

Lets stone some infidels.

I'd prefer conversion.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

to disbelieve based on the Bible's fallibility is not possible, because it is inerrant.

...ROFL.

Ok, Digital, answer me this:

I'm sure your aware of the discrepancies between the story of the nativity in Matthew and Luke. Matthew says evil King Herod ordered all the babies to die. Luke doesn't mention Herod or his death order against babies at all.

Here's the discrepancy I'd like you to unravel:

Matthew 2:13-15

13And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

So Joseph and Mary fled in the night to Egypt, where they remained until Herod died. This happened right after the magi had departed (beginning of verse 13).

However:

Luke 2:21-24

21And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) 24And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

This says (and this conforms with Jewish custom), that Jesus was taken to Jerusalem 8 days after he was born to be circumcised.

Furthermore:

Luke 2:39

39And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Joseph and Mary took Jesus straight from Jerusalem to Nazareth. No Egypt there! Read the filler in between if you like; it's not there!

I ask you, Digital, where was Jesus 8 days after he was born? In Jerusalem being circumcised? Or in Egypt hiding from Herod?

Elephantitis Man, this thread is dealing with PI in the BIBLE.

Please create other threads for the topics you have posted.

I don't want this thread to be derailed.

Thank you.

Actually, I will create it for you.

Matthew and Luke were 2 different people, and they both had different perspectives on what was happening. When you have more than 1 person describing something they saw, you have slight differences.

The differences were not based on perspective, since both accounts were inspired by God, and therefore there is no room for contradiction, even if the account comes from two separate sources.

I REFUTE THE "CONTRADICTION" HERE (https://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005168.html).

The fact that the vessel was not perfectly shaped (according to you), already proves that the bible contains error in its description of the shape.

The fact that the value of pi it implies is an approximation of pi, according to the article you linked to -- and not the true value of pi -- also means the bible contains error.

You have admitted that the bible contains error. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-17-2006).]

My bath isn't 6 gallons.

Your argument is flawed.

IT NEVER SAYS IT WAS A CIRCLE, only that it was circular in shape. It was roundish, its like your trying to draw a circle on a piece of paper without a compass.

You're grasping at straws.

Circular:

"1.

a) having the form of a circle

b) moving in or describing a circle or spiral

2.

a) of or relating to a circle or its mathematical properties.

b)having a circular base or bases"

- Merriam Webster.

Take whichever of those definitions you like, it still describes a circle. One which must fulfill the properties already mentioned.

More importantly, you completely ignore the fact that it gives a circumference and diameter! It must be describing a circle because those two parameters do just that: describe a circle!

You are grasping at straws by claiming that it was a perfect circle (pi) to begin with, when clearly the measurements prove that the bath was never a perfect circle.

The claim was never made that the bath had anything to do with perfect circles, or pi.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The fact that the vessel was not perfectly shaped (according to you), already proves that the bible contains error in its description of the shape.

Wrong. It gives the measurements of the bath, which was described as circular. Anything else concluded beyond that originates from the reader, not from the text.

You see a flaw, because you have inserted information that was not given.

All you have is an assumption, at best.

A circular vessel certainly does NOT have to be a perfect circle.

quote:The fact that the value of pi it implies is an approximation of pi, according to the article you linked to -- and not the true value of pi -- also means the bible contains error.

Where is the implication that the value of pi has ANYTHING to do with the scripture ?

Even if we follow your logic, and the logic of the mathematician that wrote the Exegesis, the error is not in the Bible, but in Jewish mathematics, at the time that the bath was constructed.

It was an eye-witness account of the temple of Solomon, not a lecture on the value of pi.

There is still no Biblical flaw.

quote:You have admitted that the bible contains error. Thank you.

I have admitted nothing of the sort, because the scripture and the evidence does not support that conclusion.

Only bias and stubborness arrive you to that conclusion.

Thank you.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You are grasping at straws by claiming that it was a perfect circle (pi) to begin with, when clearly the measurements prove that the bath was never a perfect circle.

The claim was never made that the bath had anything to do with perfect circles, or pi.

No. I'm not grasping at straws at all. If anybody is doing so, it is you and Dragonsthrone.

1. For it to be circular to begin with it must have the properties of a circle, one of which is that its circumference is pi times its diameter. If a shape does not have that property, then it isn't a circle, period. You cannot even say "it isn't a perfect circle" because it isn't a circle at all, let alone an imperfect one (whatever the hell that means).

The fact that mathematicians/teachers still call shapes which do not follow that exact same property, "circles", only points to a wilful error mathematicians/teachers are willing to make for the sake of convenience. Yet the fact remains that a circle must fulfill the characteristic mentioned above, and what the bible describes simply does not.

2. The very fact that the bible is describing the creation of a circular object which is not a "perfect circle" (it's not a circle to being with but I'm entertaining that phrase here) would mean the bible has described a circular object imperfectly. Thus, again, containing error.

3. You already provided the value of pi (as given in the link you cited); as such, you believe the bible does in fact give a value of pi - directly or indirectly. If you do so, and if the value it gives is an estimation

(as your own links acknowledges), then it contains error by definition, and thus, yet again, the bible is proven to be fallible.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Wrong. It gives the measurements of the bath, which was described as circular. Anything else concluded beyond that originates from the reader, not from the text.

You see a flaw, because you have inserted information that was not given.

All you have is an assumption, at best.

A circular vessel certainly does NOT have to be a perfect circle.

The vessel must be circular, and it isn't if it does not describe a circle. That's the point, which you missed. If it is describing a "imperfect circle" then it describes something both imperfect, and not circular at all, which means it contains error.

quote:Where is the implication that the value of pi has ANYTHING to do with the scripture ?

Even if we follow your logic, and the logic of the mathematician that wrote the Exegesis, the error is not in the Bible, but in Jewish mathematics, at the time that the bath was constructed.

It was an eye-witness account of the temple of Solomon, not a lecture on the value of pi.

There is still no Biblical flaw.

The value of pi has everything to do with the scripture since that is exactly what determines if the shape being built is circular or not. If it does not follow the quality of its circumference being pi times its diameter, then it is not circular in shape and therefore the bible contains error - which is central to your beliefs.

Moreover, the fact that it isn't a treatise on pi does not mean anything at all. It's still an error.

quote:I have admitted nothing of the sort, because the scripture and the evidence does not support that conclusion.

Only bias and stubborness arrive you to that conclusion.

Thank you.

You might not have admitted it in words, since you're unable to (ironic that you talk about stubborness), but the logical conclusion of what you stated is that exactly. The very fact that you cite an articles which shows how the value of pi in the bible is an estimation, already proves that it contains error - which is why you ignored that part of what I said compeltely.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-17-2006).]

Score- Rust:1 DS:-2

Keep up the good work, although she is too blind to actually know that evertime she posts she just makes an ass out of herself.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The burden of proof is on the skeptic.

It is?



quote:Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (See also Deut. 14:7)

But actually, hares don't chew cud. The follow is the only defence I have found for this error:

quote:However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

Pretty weak. We just have to take their word about the Hebrew (and why didn't the professionals who translated it translate it differently, then?), and eating what you have actually passed down is not the same at all as regurgitation. Clutching at straws, as you say. "Well, it's essentially the same... even Linnaeus got it wrong [and lots of other things, actually]..."

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 03-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You might not have admitted it in words, since you're unable to (ironic that you talk about stubborness), but the logical conclusion of what you stated is that exactly. The very fact that you cite an articles which shows how the value of pi in the bible is an estimation, already proves that it contains error - which is why you ignored that part of what I said compeltely.



A circle does not have to be a perfect circle, in order to recognize it as 'circular.' In fact, I'm willing to bet that you have never drawn a perfect circle, because its such a rarity to actually do so. A true circle is taken lightly, but it really is an achievement. But we don't question whether ir not we can recognize if you can draw a 'O' or '0'. Neither should you question the verse because it is speaking in terms of non-linear proportions, or at the very least, that it wasn't angular. Its being descriptive so we can understand what was made in honor of Yahweh. Aside from that, the value of pi was already understood prior to Euclidean geometry. The way you make it sound, was as if they had no concept of it during the time this was written. Pi was first seen in Egypt, which is understood to be the progenitor of Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek geometry. Its been said that the Pyramid of Giza equals pi, not in its linear state, but that the measurments come out as equaling 3.14. Personally, I'm not as mathematically inclined as I wish to be. Nontheless, it doesn't take a mathematician to know that circular does not have to denote perfection.

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/Gpyr.html



The point being, Solomon never said anything about a perfect circle, or gave the measurment of pi. I'm not sure how you've come to the deduction that it presents a problem in Biblical terms of errancy or inerrancy. But even supposing that Solomon intended to make a perfect circle, (which he probably did), how does that affect the meaning of the passage as it relates to God? Man is fallible. God is not.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

A circle does not have to be a perfect circle, in order to recognize it as 'circular.' In fact, I'm willing to bet that you have never drawn a perfect circle, because its such a rarity to actually do so. A true circle is taken lightly, but it really is an achievement. But we don't question whether ir not we can recognize if you can draw a 'O' or '0'. Neither should you question the verse because it is speaking in terms of non-linear proportions, or at the very least, that it wasn't angular. Its being descriptive so we can understand what was made in honor of Yahweh. Aside from that, the value of pi was already understood prior to Euclidean geometry. The way you make it sound, was as if they had no concept of it during the time this was written. Pi was first seen in Egypt, which is understood to be the progenitor of Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek geometry. Its been said that the Pyramid of Giza equals pi, not in its linear state, but that the measurments come out as equaling 3.14. Personally, I'm not as mathematically inclined as I wish to be. Nontheless, it doesn't take a mathematician to know that circular does not have to denote perfection.



1. The term "circular" denotes, as I showed in a previous post, something having the form of a circle, and/or it's properties. Thus, the property of its circumference being pi times its diameter, is an absolute requirement. If it does not conform to that property then it cannot have the form of a circle, nor the properties of a circle.

2. You're making the erroneous claim that a "imperfect circle" is a circle, which it is not. If it is imperfect because it does not conform to the properties of what a circle entails (which is the case here), then it is not a circle by definition! You're simply adding the modifier "imperfect" to somehow justify the error; in doing so, you're refuting that it is a circle to being with as it clearly does not have neither circular form nor circular properties.

To use an analogy: by your logic, a shape with three vertices which total 181 degrees is an "imperfect triangle". That's completely ludicrous. It's not a triangle - let alone an "imperfect one" - because its vertices do not sum up to 180 degrees which is exactly what a triangle is!

The same applies here. Something circular must have the properties of a circle, properties which do not include "almost being a circle... but not really". If the shape being describe does not conform with the property of circumference being equal to its diameter, then it is not a circular at all.



3. I know that a more accurate number of pi was know before hand. My argument doesn't rest on the Hebrews not knowing the value for pi, but of the bible either giving an erroneous value for pi, or an erroneous values of the circumference/diameter.

quote:

The point being, Solomon never said anything about a perfect circle, or gave the measurment of pi. I'm not sure how you've come to the deduction that it presents a problem in Biblical terms of errancy or inerrancy. But even supposing that Solomon intended to make a perfect circle, (which he probably did), how does that affect the meaning of the passage as it relates to God? Man is fallible. God is not.

1. It gives the measurement of pi implicitly.

2. It has everything to do with biblical 'inerrancy' because the Bible is asserting something is a circle when it clearly is not.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-17-2006).]

quote:

3 /= pi



Does (3 /= pi) == 0.95238095238095

Isn't it true that every measurement has some error? In the chemical industry you pay for the 9's that follow 99%.

You're making the erroneous claim that a "imperfect circle" is a circle, which it is not. If it is imperfect because it does not conform to the properties of what a circle entails (which is the case here), then it is not a circle by definition! You're simply adding the modifier "imperfect" to somehow justify the error; in doing so, you're refuting that it is a circle to being with as it clearly does not have neither circular form nor circular properties.

I'm not making any error. By your logic, if I asked you to draw me a circle, but you couldn't do it perfectly, would I somehow not understand that what you drew was circular? Since when does a perfect circle have to be drawn, or fashioned through metalurgy for someone to understand the concept of 'circular?'

To use an analogy: by your logic, a shape with three vertices which total 181 degrees is an "imperfect triangle". That's completely ludicrous. It's not a triangle - let alone an "imperfect one" - because its vertices do not sum up to 180 degrees which is exactly what a triangle is!

Equilateral triangle, Isosceles triangle, Right-Angled triangle, and a Scalene triangles are all different triangles, but they are still triangles, and we still understand that its a triangle. The only thing important is that it has 3 (tri) sides.

All that triangle means is that there are 3-sides of some defintie linear angles, unlike something that is circular.

An equilateral triangle has 3 sides and their lengths are equal on all three sides.

Since all the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees then 180 divided by 3 must equal 60 degrees. The scalene triangle has no sides of equal length and no angles the same. There are four different kinds trianlges, but we know what you mean by drawing a triangle. It doesn't need to have perfectly congruant sides to understand what a triangle means. Neither do we need to have a perfect circle to understand what circular means.

1. It gives the measurement of pi implicitly.

It didn't imply anything. It gave you the measurments, and that's it. How you came up with this theory that it had to equal pi is of your own accord.

2. It has everything to do with biblical 'inerrancy' because the Bible is asserting something is a circle when it clearly is not.

No, if it said, "And thou shalt fashion Me a perfect circle" ....... Then I would say, "Yeah, Rust has a point here."

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I'm not making any error. By your logic, if I asked you to draw me a circle, but you couldn't do it perfectly, would I somehow not understand that what you drew was circular? Since when does a perfect circle have to be drawn, or fashioned through metalurgy for someone to understand the concept of 'circular?'



Like I said, we label things that are not truly circles as "circles" for convenience. That does not refute the fact that they are not strictly circles. We allow that because of convenience, brevity and ease, and since humanity does not claim to be omnipotent and infallible, errors are allowed.

The bible, however, claims to be infallible, and thus any error, however minor, would refute its infallibility. The fact that it describes a shape as circular, when it clearly is not, means that it has comitted an error.

quote:



Equilateral triangle, Isosceles triangle, Right-Angled triangle, and a Scalene triangles are all different triangles, but they are still triangles, and we still understand that its a triangle. The only thing important is that it has 3 (tri) sides.

All that triangle means is that there are 3-sides of some defintie linear angles, unlike something that is circular.

An equilateral triangle has 3 sides and their lengths are equal on all three sides.

Since all the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees then 180 divided by 3 must equal 60 degrees. The scalene triangle has no sides of equal length and no angles the same. There are four different kinds trianlges, but we know what you mean by drawing a triangle. It doesn't need to have perfectly congruant sides to understand what a triangle means. Neither do we need to have a perfect circle to understand what circular means.

You evaded my point completely.

I understand that we can have different triangles with differing angles in their vertices; the key point being that we can have them if and only if their vertices sum to a total of 180 degrees.

Similarly, we can have circles of differing sizes with differing central points, yet only if and only if their circumference is equal to pi times its diameter. The shape being described in the bible simply does not conform to that property, hence it is not circular in shape. Period.

quote:

It didn't imply anything. It gave you the measurments, and that's it. How you came up with this theory that it had to equal pi is of your own accord.

If it gives the measurements of diameter and circumference then it has given pi implicitly since pi equals C/d.

So by stating both parameters it has also given the value of pi implicitly. Thus, if we take those values as true, then the value of pi is wrong. If we assume the value of pi it is using is right, then the values it gave for the diameter/circumference are wrong.

quote:2.

No, if it said, "And thou shalt fashion Me a perfect circle" ....... Then I would say, "Yeah, Rust has a point here."



No. If it says a shape is circular, when it clearly is not, then it has everything to do with biblical errancy.

Again, a shape which does not conform to the peropeties and/or form of a circle, is not circular. The shape described as "circular" in the bible, does not conform to that property, hence it is not circular.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-18-2006).]

Digi isn't saying that it's describing an "imperfect circle" as Rust seems to think. The verse is describing an ellipse, which, as we all know, is circular-shaped.

quote:Originally posted by Haddock:

Digi isn't saying that it's describing an "imperfect circle" as Rust seems to think. The verse is describing an ellipse, which, as we all know, is circular-shaped.

I can't believe I read this thread. It's a waste of time to argue points as silly as this. However, for the record, the phrase "seventeen-and-a-half feet from rim to rim" is incredibly misleading if the rim to rim distance varies, as it would in an ellipse.

Can someone find some elliptical pottery from this era? If I recall correctly, by the time pottery was getting this large, it was wheel spun, and thus circular, not elliptical.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Again, a shape which does not conform to the peropeties and/or form of a circle, is not circular. The shape described as "circular" in the bible, does not conform to that property, hence it is not circular.

CIRCULAR (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=circular)

1. Of or relating to a circle.

2. Shaped like or nearly like a circle; round.

3. Moving in or forming a circle.

4. Circuitous; roundabout: took a circular route to the office.

CIRCULAR (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/circular)

1A. Having the form of a circle : ROUND

1B. Moving in or describing a circle or spiral

3A. Of or relating to a circle or its mathematical properties <a circular arc>

3B. Having a circular base or bases <a circular cylinder>

4. CIRCUITOUS, INDIRECT

5. Marked by or moving in a cycle



Man, the dictionaries seem to get you every time, don't they ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Clearly, for something to be described as "circular", it is not REQUIRED that it be a perfect circle.

So, now we're supposed to govern our perception of the Bible's infallability on Rust's rules, and not God's !! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Sorry, but the purpose of that scripture was not prove anything mathematical, nor suggest that a circle is equal to anything less than Pi.

The purpose of the scripture was to give the measurements for a circular shaped bath in Solomon's temple. That's it.

You can read into it all you like, but it contains no mathematical error, since no mathematical equation was presented.

It also does not contain an error regarding "shapes", since the usage of the word "circular" could mean anything from oval to circle.

When I see the world "circular", I think of something "round". If the author intended us to think of a "perfect circle", he would have said so.

Do you ever admit it when you are wrong, man ?

It's truly pathetic how far you are taking this, when there are much better examples in the Bible you could use to try and prove it imperfect.

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

I can't believe I read this thread. It's a waste of time to argue points as silly as this.

It's not silly to prove the Bible is inerrant.

quote:However, for the record, the phrase "seventeen-and-a-half feet from rim to rim" is incredibly misleading if the rim to rim distance varies, as it would in an ellipse.

Being that the measurement from rim to rim was actually 15 feet, I don't see why we should answer anything you ask, since you can't seem to pay attention to the details.

quote:Can someone find some elliptical pottery from this era? If I recall correctly, by the time pottery was getting this large, it was wheel spun, and thus circular, not elliptical.

If you had read the scripture posted, you would know the bath wasn't "pottery".

It was made of cast metal.

Haddock built a program to plot the ellipse based on the measurements given in the scripture.

The bath would have looked like THIS (http://tinyurl.com/pcnry).

I would call that "circular", or an "ellipse", or an "oval".

Here's the code so you can check it, if you feel it is necessary to do so:

Private Sub Pic_Click()

pic.Cls

a = 15

b = 45 / 3.1415 / a * 4

c = 3.1415 * a * b / 4

pic.Print "circumference:" + Str(c)

pic.Print "minor axis:" + Str(Round(b, 2))

pic.Print "major axis:" + Str(a)

For i = 0 To 6.29 Step 0.01

lastx = newx

lasty = newy

newx = 25 + b * Cos(i)

newy = 25 + 15 * Sin(i)

If lastx Then pic.Line (lastx, lasty)-(newx, newy)

Next i

pic.ForeColor = vbRed

pic.Line (25, 10)-(25, 40)

pic.ForeColor = vbBlue

pic.Line ((25 - b), 25)-((25 + b), 25)

End Sub

Ok, let's settle this little diction dispute. The word used for round in the passage is agol. This does not automatically imply a perfect circle unless there are qualifiers added. Elipses and ovoid shapes may also be described by this adjective. It appears in the phrase "the world is round" or 'Ha Olam Agol.' The earth is in fact not a perfect sphere, but an ovoid. In another instance of its usage, in the Book of the Ten Sefiros, it is used with qualifiers to convey perfection. In Sefer Sefiros 1:4 it is written that the "place of Halal was Agol on every side, and completely even." Later in that very passage, the shape of the Ein Sof is described using a different word "Igul" conveying the same shape, but this word needs no qualifiers to imply perfection, because it means that there are no angles within it. If the verse had said that the sea was an Igul, rather than being merely Agol, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

[B] It's not silly to prove the Bible is inerrant.B]

It is HOWEVER, silly to think that the bible is real.

It's real, whether it's the word of God or not. Ask any publisher...they've sold millions of them !

As a side note, I am so impressed by your 14-year-old-ness.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

and I am so impressed by your argumentum ad populum.

Thesaurus.com States:

Main Entry: Real

Part of Speech: adjective

Definition: genuine

Synonyms: absolute, actual, authentic

Antonyms: false, imaginary

When I used the word real, I used it with those definitions in mind. As in the bible is a false story.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth, you, you, 14 year old. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Spare me the petty insults, as I know what age I am, and it's not 14.

I know what you meant, jackass.

Learn how to take a joke. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

and I am so impressed by your argumentum ad populum.

Why thank you !

I don't give out autographs on Sunday, so kindly remove your lips from my....*coughs*

Learn how to not be so blind and brainwashed? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Apoxyus:

Learn how to not be so blind and brainwashed? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

If Digi were so brainwashed and blind, how is it that she makes you and your cronies look so silly?

If you want to have a debate, then debate. We don't need your childish hyperbole or rhetoric for you to make a point -a valid point.

It is possible to be quasi respectful and still not agree.

That's all very interesting, but I don't understand what this has to do with proving the bible true or false. Moreover I don't understand the mathematics, simply because I can barely count, let alone figure out that crazy numerical diagram you've posed there.

Uh... I'm going to check those mathematics with someone and try to figure out what this proves or disproves now.

Edit: Also, after doing some research, your equation in bold isn't valid. I assume "c" stands for cubit and you appear to be assuming a different measurement for a cubit: 21 inches, rather than the correct 18

Cheers,

Lost

[This message has been edited by LostCause (edited 03-20-2006).]

Okay, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. So, the concept in the thread is that the dimensions described in the passage don't make a circle. But, that fact doesn't disprove the bible because the passage describes it as "round" and not as a perfect circle. Therefore, disproving skeptics who assumed it was a perfect circles accusation of the bible being false.

Though, I have to say a "skeptic" so uneducated really doesn't count in a real argument. Such a skeptic is not a real skeptic and therefore, their opinion is kind of moot on such an acute subject.

So your making an argument about something that doesn't need to be argued. It clearly states "round" and not perfectly circular. Therefore, creating an argument against someone arguing it's perfectly circular is ridiculous, because obviously they're wrong. So, what's the point of arguing with an idiot? If I may qoute a previous My God mod (BarRoomHero): "Never argue an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you at their own game."

Cheers,

Lost

[This message has been edited by LostCause (edited 03-20-2006).]

The point is this: Rust claimed that this scripture proves that the Bible isn't inerrant.

I felt the need to correct him, and to ask that he not repeat such an idiotic statement ever again.

I also encouraged him to find better reasons to say the Bible isn't perfect, because this was one of the silliest.

S'alright now ?

I'm going to break down the math.

1 Kings 7:23-26

Circumfrence: 30 cubits

Diameter: 10 cubits

Height: 5 cubits

Capacity: 2,000 baths

Thickness: 1 handsbreadth

From the Jewish Bible:

Circumfrence: 52.5 feet

Diameter: 17.5 feet

Height: 8.75 feet

Capacity: 11,000 gallons

Thickness: 1 handsbreadth

--------------------------

Revised

1 Kings 7:23-26

Circumfrence: (45 feet)

Diameter: 180 inches (15 feet)

Height: 90 inches (7.5 feet)

Capacity: 12,000 gallons

Thickness: 3 inches

From the Jewish Bible:

Circumfrence: 630 inches (52.5 feet)

Diameter: 210 inches (17.5 feet)

Height: 105 inches (8.75 feet)

Capacity: 11,000 gallons

Thickness: 3 inches

------------------------------------

Circumfrence, diameter, and height are all exactly 7/6 larger in the Jewish Bible version. Thus actual volume will also be 7/6 larger.

Given capacity of 1 Kings 7:23-26 bath:

12,000 gallons

Actual capacity of 1 Kings 7:23-26 bath:

1208.6-1325.4 cubic feet (7769-8520 gallons)

Given capacity of Jewish Bible bath:

11,000 gallons

Actual capacity of Jewish Bible bath:

1410-1546.3 cubic feet (9064-9940 gallons)

The volume of a gallon = 0.15556 cubic feet

Regarding pi:

The dimensions do not lend themselves to the exact ratio of pi, but only differ from it by 5%.

I have a Jewish Bible right here in front of me, and the dimensions given are as follows:

17 1/2 feet from rim to rim, 8 3/4 feet high, and 52 1/2 feet in circumference.

Even with these modifications, I hardly see how that changes the purpose of this thread, which is to show that this particular scripture is not in error, since it is not trying to prove anything.

Thanks for your post, but I am not sure it offered anything insightful or even beneficial.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have a Jewish Bible right here in front of me, and the dimensions given are as follows:

17 1/2 feet from rim to rim, 8 3/4 feet high, and 52 1/2 feet in circumference.

Even with these modifications, I hardly see how that changes the purpose of this thread, which is to show that this particular scripture is not in error, since it is not trying to prove anything.

Thanks for your post, but I am not sure it offered anything insightful or even beneficial.

I disagree. It may seem arbitrary to your argument but as far as pi in the bible goes, we're looking at biblical mathematics and he's elaborating on biblical mathematics. I think it contributes quite a bit to the tone of the thread. Especially if it's being archived.

Cheers,

Lost

Well, the issue wasn't whether the Bible accurately gives the value of Pi, so no matter the actual dimensions of the bath, the claim that it is in error is still incorrect.

That's why his correction wasn't really relevant. As long as the dimensions do not represent a perfect circle, the actual measurements are not important. As he pointed out, they are all off by 7/6, so it didn't affect the outcome of the plot.

*shrugs*

I'd have to agree with Digital though, Lost. We already know the math doesn't come to pi, we're simply saying that the reason for that is because the shape in question is not a perfect circle, but an elipse. It is interesting, and disturbing, however, to note that the dimmensions vary between translations...

Why because you are a right winged christian that can't comprehend that their sacred bible is fake? Get over it, and stop being so blind, seriously!

quote:Originally posted by Apoxyus:

Why because you are a right winged christian that can't comprehend that their sacred bible is fake? Get over it, and stop being so blind, seriously!

First of all, I'm Jewish, so you're drawing conclusions illogically right off the bat. Second, it might behoove you to stop being so obsessed with ad hominems and develop the ability to argue logically, and, I might add, with some sense of decorum and tact. Third, how does the accuracy of various translations have any bearing on the truth or falsity of the text being translated? Your logic suffers there too, doesn't it?

I'm worried about the great numbers of people who will never understand the text beyond what they are told it says, and then base their doctrinal decisions off of that: or for that matter their conclusions as to its validity.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Ok, let's settle this little diction dispute. The word used for round in the passage is agol. This does not automatically imply a perfect circle unless there are qualifiers added. Elipses and ovoid shapes may also be described by this adjective. It appears in the phrase "the world is round" or 'Ha Olam Agol.' The earth is in fact not a perfect sphere, but an ovoid. In another instance of its usage, in the Book of the Ten Sefiros, it is used with qualifiers to convey perfection. In Sefer Sefiros 1:4 it is written that the "place of Halal was Agol on every side, and completely even." Later in that very passage, the shape of the Ein Sof is described using a different word "Igul" conveying the same shape, but this word needs no qualifiers to imply perfection, because it means that there are no angles within it. If the verse had said that the sea was an Igul, rather than being merely Agol, we wouldn't be having this discussion.



1. "Perfect circle" is a redundancy. There are circles or non-circles: shapes that conform to the definition of a circle, and shapes that do not.

2. If you want to settle the diction dispute, then you're going to have to look at much more than just a mere word.

The bible describes only one diameter. A circle is the only shape that has one constant diameter. An oval does not have one constant diameter; it has many different diameters. If the bible is describing an oval (or any other shape that does not have a constant diameter - that is, any other shape that is not a circle), then it is doing a terrible job at doing so.

3. An oval would be suboptimal in holding water. A circle would hold more water than an oval, while using the same materials. (Of course, I'm referring to three-dimensional shapes based on either a circle or an oval - e.g. cylinders...)

----

So, if you conclude that the bible is not describing a circle, what you're saying is that we should not only ignore that it only gives one diameter, (and thus to conclude that the bible is worse than a 10th grader in describing geometric shapes), but also that it is describing a suboptimal shape for the task at hand. Please. That's the definition of grasping at straws: trying to defend the bible even if in doing so it proves the bible to be childishly inept and worse than simply mistaken.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Man, the dictionaries seem to get you every time, don't they ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Actually no. Only one of the 8+ definitions given supports your ridiculous assertion. This fact points to me either being correct (based on the sheer number of definitions that support my interpretation) or that we can't conclude either way, since we can't possibly know which definition the bible is using.

So no, they don't "get me" if anything, they support me.



quote:

Clearly, for something to be described as "circular", it is not REQUIRED that it be a perfect circle.

So, now we're supposed to govern our perception of the Bible's infallability on Rust's rules, and not God's !! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Sorry, but the purpose of that scripture was not prove anything mathematical, nor suggest that a circle is equal to anything less than Pi.

The purpose of the scripture was to give the measurements for a circular shaped bath in Solomon's temple. That's it.

No, it is required that it describes the properties/form of a circle, and the shape described in the bible clearly does not.

As for the purpose, that is irrelevant as the presence or lack of purpose does not refute the presence or lack of error.

quote:

You can read into it all you like, but it contains no mathematical error, since no mathematical equation was presented.

Irrelevant. It gave proportions of a gemetrical shape that does not describe pi correctly, which therefore means it has an error.

That's exactly what the link you provided proved. Are you admitting the the very link you provided was wrong? Were you mistaken in providing that link?

quote:

It also does not contain an error regarding "shapes", since the usage of the word "circular" could mean anything from oval to circle.

When I see the world "circular", I think of something "round". If the author intended us to think of a "perfect circle", he would have said so.



1. There is no such thing as "perfect circle". There are circles, and non-circles. "Perfect" is merely and adjective you're throwing around in order to justify your silly belief.

2. The bible only mentions 1 diameter. What shape has only one diameter? The circle.

Either the bible was so inept that it fails to describe an oval accurately, or it is describing a circle. Which one is it?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-20-2006).]

You don't find many oval shaped cup rims.

[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 03-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Lets stone some infidels.

*shrugs*

quote:Originally posted by Apoxyus:

Why because you are a right winged christian that can't comprehend that their sacred bible is fake? Get over it, and stop being so blind, seriously!

That was so persuasive! You've convinced me!

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Originally posted by Apoxyus:

Why because you are a right winged christian that can't comprehend that their sacred bible is fake? Get over it, and stop being so blind, seriously!

First of all, I'm Jewish, so you're drawing conclusions illogically right off the bat. Second, it might behoove you to stop being so obsessed with ad hominems and develop the ability to argue logically, and, I might add, with some sense of decorum and tact. Third, how does the accuracy of various translations have any bearing on the truth or falsity of the text being translated? Your logic suffers there too, doesn't it?

I'm worried about the great numbers of people who will never understand the text beyond what they are told it says, and then base their doctrinal decisions off of that: or for that matter their conclusions as to its validity.



Wow, You're a jew, and you are backing things that a christian is saying. OMFG. Sorry for drawing conclusions, I mean, you don't believe in Jesus and the new testament. It's bad enough that two religions rely so heavily on the SAME FUCKING BOOK. It's even worse when you have them trying to argue whether or not they are wrong about PI in the bible. Rust clearly took every arguement that either you or DS came up with and slammed them down, so there is no need for me to try and refute any "claims" that you may have had.

I'm so glad that you are smart enough to tell me to stop using ad hominems when that is EXACTLY what you and digital_savior do everytime you try and say the bible is real. That is your "personal consideration" of this argument. What's wrong? Did you not think that I don't have some kind of background in debating? Don't try and use big words to confuse me, it may work on some of the idiots here, but it doesn't work when that person is smarter than you.

I'm sorry, but when you argue someone who is so blind with "faith" it's kinda hard to come up with logical arguments as anytime I try to even comment that the bible has no real basis behind it being true, you and your bible thumpers claim that I am illogical because I can't "comprehend" how the bible is so fucking great.

For being a moderator, you sure do swing heavily to one side of the field. Why not try to set your fucking upbringings and stubborness to the side and actually look at the bible with open eyes? Oh, I'm sorry that might be a little difficult for you to do. That's ok, someday maybe, they might wake up.

"Third, how does the accuracy of various translations have any bearing on the truth or falsity of the text being translated?" Hmm, ok lets have an experiment. I will write a ficition story in chinese then someone who knows about 700 characters and has his own idea of my story will rewrite it in english, then lets retranslate it to hebrew. Then take it and get it translated back into chinese. HOW CLOSE TO THE SAME DO YOU THINK THAT BOOK IS GONNA BE? Have some similarities, but in essence not the same book. Now take that same situation and apply it to the bible, which is what happened, but on a much longer scale of time. THEN YOU CAN HONESTLY TELL ME THAT IT IS STILL 100% TRUE, YOU CAN'T.

Nice try, but you failed when you tryed to tell me I USE AD HOMINEMS, when 90% of a bible thumpers argument is what, full of ad hominems.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Here's the code so you can check it, if you feel it is necessary to do so:

Private Sub Pic_Click()

pic.Cls

a = 15

b = 45 / 3.1415 / a * 4

c = 3.1415 * a * b / 4

pic.Print "circumference:" + Str(c)

pic.Print "minor axis:" + Str(Round(b, 2))

pic.Print "major axis:" + Str(a)

For i = 0 To 6.29 Step 0.01

lastx = newx

lasty = newy

newx = 25 + b * Cos(i)

newy = 25 + 15 * Sin(i)

If lastx Then pic.Line (lastx, lasty)-(newx, newy)

Next i

pic.ForeColor = vbRed

pic.Line (25, 10)-(25, 40)

pic.ForeColor = vbBlue

pic.Line ((25 - b), 25)-((25 + b), 25)

End Sub



ewwwww... vb.

perl>vb

c/c++>vb

java>vb

going out on a limb here, but

fortran>vb

... thats how much vb sucks

quote: “Pi is exactly 3!”

- Professor Frink

OK where to start…

Digital Saviour, this is pretty much just for you, whether you actually read my stimulant fuelled verbal avalanche or not is somewhat irrelevant to me, although unlike my drug fuelled debacle the other night on various totse forums I’ll keep things lucid and somewhat rational this time. Variety is the spice of life. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) Well I don’t visit the god forum much any more, but when my eyes wandered over the thread title I had make an exception.

First I’ll make sure I explain what I think you’re saying before I respond to it: critics argue that parts of the Bible contain flaws, which they use as evidence God doesn’t exist; to take one example they say the Bible incorrectly states that pi is equal to 3; however the Bible never mentions pi, therefore doesn’t make any such claim - it just mentions a figure that resembles pi, perhaps by coincidence; the critics are obviously wrong because they pretend the Bible says something that it actually doesn’t, just so they can attack the fictional claim; the Bible, as usual, contains no mistakes, which is consistent with it being the literal word of God because he is flawless and created the Bible as proof of his existence and perfection.

First the defences:

The paper you linked to by Belaga is one of the most well known defences. One thing that’s confusing though is that your posts and what Belaga says are two different things. You say it doesn’t try to calculate pi, he says it calculates pi accurately. I can only assume that you referred to it because it supports your general argument, but more importantly anybody scanning through it sees a technical and somewhat complicated work that would need some time and concentration to read and examine. Hardly anybody is likely to bother spending time and effort to wade through it unless they have a pretty good reason, considering they’re probably not specially fascinated by it and assume someone else will check it anyway, so they’ll just take it as prima facie support for your claim that it’s a “logical, mathematical explanation” of why the Bible is infallible. Whether you did this without actually reading his paper yourself, or did know what it said and were trying to use to manipulate your audience, it’s hard to decide (and also hard to say which casts you in a better light).

Anyhow his argument is based on the mnemonic structure of Hebrew gematria. From his paper:

quote: The key to an alternative reading of the verse 1 Kings 7:23 is to be found in the very ancient Hebrew tradition (see, e.g., , [Banon 1987, pp. 52, 53]) to differently write (spell) and read some words of the Bible; the reading version is usually regarded as a correct one (in particular, it is always correct from the point of view of the Hebrew grammar, and this is why it could be easily either remembered or reconstructed from the written version), whereas the written version slightly deviates from the correct spelling.

In gematria every letter of the Hebrew alphabet corresponds to its own number. Numerologists can then look at any word, convert its letters into the corresponding numbers, and add them together to give a numerical value for that word. His claim is that in ancient times some words had two different spellings depending on whether the word was being read or being written, which sounds odd but to use an example a Jewish person reading the Hebrew Bible considers it blasphemous to say the name of God, written “YHWH”, out loud. So it’s written as YHWH in the text but read out loud as “The Name”, or another substitute word that is given in the margin of the text. Now that particular example is a whole can of worms, so let’s just leave it as an example and if needs be talk about the YHWH thing another time. The point is, one word could have more than one spelling.



Belaga offers a new way to calculate the value of pi on the basis of the possible bivalence in the Hebrew version of the passage, specifically adjusting for the ambiguity between read and written forms of the word “line”. This is the formula he gives:

Pi = (biblical approximation of pi) X (number corresponding to the written form of “line”)/(number corresponding to the read form of “line”)

This gives:

Pi = (3) X (111)/(106)

Pi = 3.1415…..

So according to him, the real value of pi is hidden in the Bible, through this linguistic variation. To support it he points out that in the original Hebrew texts, the written and read forms of the word “line” both appear, one in the Kings passage and one in the Chronicles passage, suggesting a deliberate discrepancy to imply the proper interpretation of pi. It’s an interesting occurrence and an impressive discovery on Belaga’s part, aside from whether he is correct or not. I’ll talk about that a little later (if you want to skip ahead, scroll down till you see the asterisk in brackets).

Now of course there are objections. If “logical, mathematical explanations” are good enough to defend the credibility of the Bible, they must also be good enough to criticize it.

For starters, the measurements pose a problem. The dimensions are given as 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. Why so imprecise? And remember the discrepancy between Kings and Chronicles that Belaga made such a big deal of? There’s another one too, the measurement of the volume this basin in Solomon’s temple aren’t the same:

quote:Kings 7:26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained [b]two thousand baths.

quote:Chronicles 4:5 And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.

I suppose an “objective” enough scholar could find some plausible explanation for this discrepancy, and prove the Bible is infallible.

The measurement of “baths” cropped up as another problem when one creationist scholar tried to justify (http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/pseudosc/pibible.htm) the Kings passage as an accurate measure of pi. Converting them to liters based on the averages from archaeological discoveries of ancient jugs of one “bath” in volume, he calculated the bath to equal 22.74 liters. Entering this into a mathematical equation for the dimensions of the basin where he equated cubits with meters, the value for pi turned out to be (astonishingly!) 3.143. Undeterred by the slight error (the real value for pi starts of 3.131 not 3.143), he declared that it was close enough and might as well be rounded to 3.14. Such high standards of precision are dizzying… let’s just ignore the detail that pi is supposed to continue numerically in an infinitely long river of precise and calculable digits. Piffle! What’s important, he declares, is that "Thus the Bible account is shown to be scientifically accurate." Hooray for creationist logic!

Of course you can say that’s only one argument. I’ll offer a few more, these are simply the best ones I could find in favor of the fundamentalist interpretation, but feel free to present alternatives and I’ll give a fair analysis of them too, though I doubt that’ll be necessary (still you fundies are a persistent bunch so who knows).

Here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp) Russell Grigg suggests two explanations. First point he raises is that the cubit is used in the Bible as a basic unit, never talked about as a fraction except a few references to half cubits. As such, the problem of measurement is due to a necessary rounding and lack of intrinsic precision, though presumably the circumference and diameter would have calculated pi precisely if not for this limitation. The actual measurements may have been 9.65 cubits in diameter and 30.32 cubits in circumference, which result in pi being correctly calculated, although rounding would turn them to 10 and 30. His second point is that the basin probably looked like this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v17/i2/p24_MoltenSea.jpg), with a flared lip that the passage compares to a “cup” or “lily blossom”. He decides that since the circumference is not described as being measured around the brim, it may have been measured at a lower, thinner, part of the basin. Inserting the circumference of 30 into the equation:

Diameter = circumference/pi

He gets:

Diameter = 30 / 3.14

Diameter = 9.55 cubits

And ends with a statement that sounds similar enough to Digital Saviour’s opening posts:

quote: It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of pi, and in particular it does not say that pi equals 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination.

How about that closer examination then…

Well it doesn’t go very well for him. First off, his claim that the Bible never talks about anything smaller than half a cubit is irrelevant, because there were smaller units than the cubit:

quote: Measures in the Bible

Essentially a composite of the neighbouring regions.

Originally, the cubit was used - the same as the royal cubit in Egypt. Later, the smaller cubit took over.

- the digit or "esba" (18.75 mm)

- 4 digits = 1 palm or "tophah"

- 12 digits or 3 palms = 1 "zeret"

- 24 digits or 6 palms = 1 small cubit or "amma" (= 450 mm or 17.72 ")

- 7 palms = 1 old cubit

The idea that the Phoenicians, masters of construction, wouldn’t know the exact measurements makes no sense. As does the idea that the writer of the passage would leave out such precision, but for some reason attempt to code in a sophisticated geometrical observation about the nature of circles. And his second claim seems to me to descend into absurdity, in fact I’m so puzzled by it I think I must be completely misunderstanding it. Am I right that he actually uses our value of pi, to calculate the diameter as 9.55 which if it has a significance is beyond me, and concludes from this that pi was there the whole time? The only explanation I can think of is that 9.55 would be rounded up to 10, although this relies on his first point making any sense, which it does not. Ultimately his arguments don’t prove anything to support the fundamentalist position.

Frankly I think neither of the people who have read this far will disagree with me when I say that this is starting to go on a wee bit too long… Plus, of equal or greater importance, I happen to be coming down. http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

(*) Alright then, time to see if the claims by Belaga, referred to in your opening posts DS, carry any weight and perhaps justify the claim that pi is accurately described. The short answer is no. Why does he calculate the ratio of the numerological values that are generated by the two forms of the word “line”? There is no logical basis to say that this was intended, even though it happens to give an interesting result. Nor is there any rational explanation for why the ratio should be then multiplied by the 30 cubit circumference. Is it interesting? Yes. Is it a purely logical step? No.

What’s the ultimate reason for Belaga using that particular equation? The reason is that it gave him the desired result. What basis is there for claiming the value of pi was hidden craftily away through an obscure linguistic anomaly – considering that the original text was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and that assigning numbers to letters in gematria occurred after the Bible was written? For that matter, why bother hiding it at all?

In fact since you said yourself, DS, that Kings is supposed to have been written by Jeremiah, wouldn’t any flaws in it be a result of his fallibility rather than God’s? If God himself had picked up a stylus and literally written it, that would be one thing, but do you think that’s what happened? Wasn’t it men, after all, who wrote the words in the Bible? And men who decided which texts should be part of the Bible, and which shouldn’t? What about the texts that weren’t included, are they not the word of God, or did the words only become his when a council of men chose the collection of texts that make up the Bible? There are even conflicts between the passages mentioned here from Kings and Chronicles (I’m referring to the number of baths given by each), how can that be any different from an alleged error in the value of pi?

So no, in the end it’s true that the passage never states “pi = 3”. On the other hand, it’s supposed to be describing an edifice that was designed by God himself, as revealed to Ezekiel:

quote: Both accounts of Solomon's Temple give the dimensions of its structure and contents in great detail. The same is true of Ezekiel's vision, but here, since he is being shown a building rather than instructed in its construction, he is guided by a man 'with a line of flax in his hand, and a measuring reed' (Ezekiel 40:3). This reed is 6 cubits long, but the cubit has an additional hand-breadth beyond the usual distance from elbow to finger-tip, and the way the guide, 'whose appearance was like the appearance of brass', demonstrates the Temple to Ezekiel is to take him round the site, like a surveyor with a pole, measuring all its features as they proceed.

These dimensions, reiterated with such deliberation in the scriptural accounts, must hold the key to a divine geometry. It was noted that they were in round figures and that sites of particular significance demonstrated special relationships: the most holy place in the Temple, for example, was a perfect cube. The design must evince the kind of harmony and relation that was the aim of all architecture. But only the dimensions were given, and those mostly in plan, so there was great scope for projecting an architecture on to these parameters. http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/gatt/temple/index.asp?C=temple

Now why would God, in his perfection, design the basin with a circle that is imperfect?

Circles are funny things. Fact is, there are no perfect circles in this universe. At least: none outside of our imaginations. Any circle you can possibly look at, if you look close enough sooner or later you’ll see the smooth curve break down into a non-smooth surface. If you have to, you can go down all the way to the atoms making up the circle, but eventually the curve breaks. That doesn’t stop things in nature from trying to be as close to a perfect circle as possible, in fact it wouldn’t even be conceivable to attain that perfection, because pi is a limit, it’s not a stable value, at best a ratio between two different values. Thing is if you’re taking the Bible as absolute literal truth, when God is constructing a circle you’d expect him to at least get a bit closer to perfection than 3…

Anyway: why do you need words, a product of the intellect, to sustain spiritual beliefs which are fundamentally emotional processes?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I'd prefer conversion.

but when it comes to the crunch you'll stone them right?

even mathematicians and scientists don't know the EXACT number for pi, pi is one of those numbers that keeps on decimalising into infinity.

fuck jesus, it's pi you all should be worshipping.

all these people writing, god did this god did that, he made the sea out of a metal pan, what?! it's all crazy nonsense, i could make stuff up that is more plausible.

As much as I disagree with Digi on... well, most issues, I'm going to have to say that, in light of what Sephiroth has said, this is a case of a flawed translation to English. The word used in the original passage does not automatically mean a perfect circle.

You guys are just looking for an excuse to flame her for being Christian. Face it. She's never going to give up her faith no matter what you say, even if you are right (which you're not, this time). Don't condemn her for your own failure to understand the intricacies of ancient languages and how they're translated to English.

However, there are numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, so if you want to point that out, go right ahead.

quote:Originally posted by Reverend Abnormal:

As much as I disagree with Digi on... well, most issues, I'm going to have to say that, in light of what Sephiroth has said, this is a case of a flawed translation to English. The word used in the original passage does not automatically mean a perfect circle.

This has already been covered already, please read what was said, or if you have, then refute it.

1. "Perfect circle" is a deliberate redundancy. It is redundant because there are only circles, and non-circles; shapes that conform to what a circle is (hence they are circles) and shapes that do not ( hence they are not circles). Deliberate because Digital_Savior is defining a new term in order to justify calling something which is not a circle and does not follow the properties of one either, a circle or "circular", anyway.

2. The bible mentions only one diameter, and says that the object is round all about. This is only consistent with a shape that has one constant diameter. A circle has one constant diameter; all other shapes have differing diameters.

If we were to believe that the bible is mentioning only one diamter in describing a non-circle (let's say an oval) then the bible has done an atrocious job, one equally grave (if not worse) than erronously giving the dimensions of a shape it's describing.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-23-2006).]

not to mention the fact that the shape described is heavily implied to be a circle by likening it to the rim of a cup

quote:Originally posted by Reverend Abnormal:



...You guys are just looking for an excuse to flame her for being Christian...



How can you make that accusation when She started this thread?

quote:Originally posted by Reverend Abnormal:

You guys are just looking for an excuse to flame her for being Christian.

No, but you gave me a reason to flame you, for being such an idiot.

quote:Originally posted by Reverend Abnormal:



You guys are just looking for an excuse to flame her for being Christian.

Woah...I did not know Digi was a girl...I've read a lot of posts by her without ever knowing that. Not that it makes a difference, I'm not sexist or anything, but anyway.

Honestly, I don't think whether or not pi is accurately represented in the bible is relevant to anything. Rust has refuted her argument as usual, but this time even if she was correct it would've been irrelevant. The bible is so full of irrefutable contradictions- statements that cannot all be true under any circumstances- that the 100% accuracy of the bible is impossible, and that is a solid fact.

Nowadays we have progressed enough to completely destroy creation and at least where I live, most christians believe in evolution. They recognize it as a metaphor. I'm not sure how long it will be before all the bible is recognized as metaphors and myths written as a guide to human life back then, but I digress. This topic was wholly and completely pointless.

I have to make a correction to my earlier post. Although since there were probably a grand total of two lurkers who were bored enough to read through it, this will be superfluous... but keeping with my new rule of only posting on totse while intoxicated on at least one substance, I'm not in a state of mind to give a damn!

Anyway to sum up my earlier post: the reasons given by fundamentalists for pi being accurately rendered are all without merit, at least the ones I have encountered. The reasons given by sceptics for pi being inaccurately rendered are also without merit. However, what can't be ignored is the fact that God supposedly designed this temple, and if the Bible is supposed to be perfect because God is created it and is himself perfect, then this temple should be equally "inerrant".

Well my mistake was that I referred to the temple's design as having been revealed to Ezekiel in a divine vision. That was incorrect.

Although there is some disagreement on the issue, the evidence points to Ezekiel's vision being intended as the plans for a temple to replace that built by Solomon after it was destroyed.

But that doesn't change the fact that God supposedly designed it, the vision was given to his father David rather than Ezekiel. When God gave his instructions he was precise enough to design the Holy of Holies to be a geometrically perfect cube 20 cubits to each side, so why would he then make the basin into anything other than a geometrically perfect circle? Either God made a mistake, or the Bible made a mistake.

I'm not trying to attack anyone's spiritual convictions, in fact quite the opposite. I just think dogmatic and legalistic religious views are opposed to spirituality.

quote:Originally posted by Lou Reed:

*shrugs*

And the point of a post like this is ... ?

quote:Originally posted by Apoxyus:

Score- Rust:1 DS:-2

I think the score is a lot higher than that, it seems like time and time again he completely refutes her arguments. Yet it doesn't seem to stop her from repeatedly coming back to try again.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



So, now we're supposed to govern our perception of the Bible's infallability on Rust's rules, and not God's !! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)



The Problem is, is that the bible states what God's rules are, and yet its infallability is supposed to be proven by the rules that it states. It doesn't seem quite right that the bible decides if the bible is right or not. That sounds a lot like the idiots on here that show up in these forums and say "I'm god because I say so, bow before me"

I think that trying to disprove the Bible by using this 'circle' example is ridiculous.

Why would someone ever assume it was talking about "pi" in the first place?

It is just co-incidence it was "3", which is close to 3.14.....

I don't think the scripture has anything to do with "pi". Just some form of a circle, or ellipse. But like Rust said, it is poorly described.

But I do disagree with Digital Savior about "the burden of proof is on the skeptic".

You will never hear such anything in any academic class, or well, any place I can think of... For example, all mathematical classes will ask you to prove many things.

Even things that seem common sense, like basic multiplication. You can't just assume an answer, it needs to be proven.

For example, Master & Ph.D. students who write a thesis/desertation, are required to prove their claims in research and convince everyone else it is so. And for obvious reasons. They do not make a claim, and say it is up to the rest of academia to prove them wrong, and then graduate with a degree. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic.

What happened here is that the skeptic of the bible made a [claim] about the bible trying to calculate "pi". But the burden is on him to prove his claim, and he couldn't (He was skeptic about the Bible, but Digital Saviour became the skeptic about his claim).So he was not the skeptic in this case, Digital was.

It just turned out in this case that the "claimer" was wrong to assume the calculation of "pi" was part of the passage, because he coudn't justify his claim. I do not even know he would make such an obviously false claim in the first place.

I think she was confused about who the skeptic was, and who the 'burden of proof' belongs to.

For example, if I claim all invisible elfs are 3 feet tall. Is it up to me to prove this is true if I want everyone else to believe it also? Or is up to everyone else, who doesn't believe me, to prove that they shouldn't believe me because I am wrong?

I am pretty sure, that I will have to prove what I say is, in fact, the truth. Everyone who doesn't believe me, is unlikely to attempt to disprove something which doesn't exist (probably, because it is ridiculous to do so). Why would someone disprove something which hasn't been proven in the first place? The fact is you can't disprove something for which there is no proof.

This is why it is said, the burden of proof is on the believer. It just makes sense.

So when Digital Savior claims the Bible is infallible, the burden is on her.

Besides, how can fictional story be false? It is as right as the writer/interpreter wants it to be.

That is right, I am claiming it is fictional...not completely, but all of the stories in the Bible aren't real. I will probably make a thread on this later, since this is off the topic of "pi".

[This message has been edited by Aeon (edited 04-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aeon:

I think that trying to disprove the Bible by using this 'circle' example is ridiculous.

Why would someone ever assume it was talking about "pi" in the first place?

It is just co-incidence it was "3", which is close to 3.14.....

I don't think the scripture has anything to do with "pi". Just some form of a circle, or ellipse. But like Rust said, it is poorly described.

But I do disagree with Digital Savior about "the burden of proof is on the skeptic".

You will never hear such anything in any academic class, or well, any place I can think of... For example, all mathematical classes will ask you to prove many things.

Even things that seem common sense, like basic multiplication. You can't just assume an answer, it needs to be proven.

For example, Master & Ph.D. students who write a thesis/desertation, are required to prove their claims in research and convince everyone else it is so. And for obvious reasons. They do not make a claim, and say it is up to the rest of academia to prove them wrong, and then graduate with a degree. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic.

What happened here is that the skeptic of the bible made a [claim] about the bible trying to calculate "pi". But the burden is on him to prove his claim, and he couldn't (He was skeptic about the Bible, but Digital Saviour became the skeptic about his claim).So he was not the skeptic in this case, Digital was.

It just turned out in this case that the "claimer" was wrong to assume the calculation of "pi" was part of the passage, because he coudn't justify his claim. I do not even know he would make such an obviously false claim in the first place.

I think she was confused about who the skeptic was, and who the 'burden of proof' belongs to.

For example, if I claim all invisible elfs are 3 feet tall. Is it up to me to prove this is true if I want everyone else to believe it also? Or is up to everyone else, who doesn't believe me, to prove that they shouldn't believe me because I am wrong?

I am pretty sure, that I will have to prove what I say is, in fact, the truth. Everyone who doesn't believe me, is unlikely to attempt to disprove something which doesn't exist (probably, because it is ridiculous to do so). Why would someone disprove something which hasn't been proven in the first place? The fact is you can't disprove something for which there is no proof.

This is why it is said, the burden of proof is on the believer. It just makes sense.

So when Digital Savior claims the Bible is infallible, the burden is on her.

Besides, how can fictional story be false? It is as right as the writer/interpreter wants it to be.

That is right, I am claiming it is fictional...not completely, but all of the stories in the Bible aren't real. I will probably make a thread on this later, since this is off the topic of "pi".





Now what other shapes are circular and have only one diameter?

quote:Originally posted by Aeon:

I think that trying to disprove the Bible by using this 'circle' example is ridiculous.

Why would someone ever assume it was talking about "pi" in the first place?

It is just co-incidence it was "3", which is close to 3.14.....

I don't think the scripture has anything to do with "pi". Just some form of a circle, or ellipse. But like Rust said, it is poorly described.

Why wouldn't someone assume it was talking about pi? Nobody said it is talking about explicitly, but if it has given the dimensions of a shape which uses pi, then it is talking about pi implictly.

If you read what the bible says, it mentions only one diameter. It is completely reasonable to conclude that it is describing a circle, because a circle has one constant diameter. In that case, it would most certainly be describing pi implicitly.

If you claim that it isn't a circle, then it means it is doing a equally grave if not worse, actions: atrocioulsy "describing" a non-circle.

The reality remains that taking the bible to be describing a circle (and thus implicitly the value of pi) is definately reasonable.

I understand what you are saying. In my most I said I was agreeing with you about a "circle" being described poorly. It did only mention one diameter.

I admit, that should the Bible have been trying to calculate pi, it is wrong...but I am not suprised to begin with.

The mathematics known to man in that era were much less developed thanthey were today. My guess is they measured the diameter and circumference using a piece of string, and by observation, realized teh length of the string was roughly 3 times as long for the circumference, consistently.

I don't think they could calculate "0.14" as in "3.14". They can do halfs, 0.5 cause it is easy. And besides, if they wrote "3.14" in the Bible, nobody would have known what that meant, as a majority of the population was uneducated in such subjects.

Also, I am not sure when the value of pi was calculated to 3.14, but I bet it happened after the bible was written.

So, I see that someone is trying to point out the inaccuracy of the Bible in terms of this 'circle'...so with that in mind, well said.

I was speaking from a point, where I was do not consider the Bible to be any sort of infallible text. In reality, the book was written by a group of men (beleived to be 12), and I would assume the mathematics presented in the Bible was limited by their own level of education and understanding. Though the book is an impressive piece of literature, I still feel it is just a book.

Case is point, I do realize the implicitly implied calculation of pi.

bible:

DIS IS DEH WORD OF GOD: PI IS EXACTLY 3 NOW SHUT UP!

quote:Originally posted by Aeon:

The mathematics known to man in that era were much less developed thanthey were today.

Not good enough reason.

Resurrecting this: why did DS never reply?

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Resurrecting this: why did DS never reply?

Because she got raped.

Immaculately.

i have one thing to say to end it all

an imperfect circle is an elipse or an oval

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

i have one thing to say to end it all

an imperfect circle is an elipse or an oval

No. An imperfect circle is any circle that exists in the physical universe.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the most asinine things I have ever seen in this forum.

Speaking of CIRCULAR things...

You believe the Bible is in "perfect form and function", because God says it is...in the Bible.