GOD tells us PI= 3 !
Offline GOD tells us PI= 3 ! ( I kings 7:23-26) http://gospelofreason.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/god-said-pi-3-stand-by-your-beliefs-dammit/ This is hilarious I have never seen it like this
.Why ? Well lets see Christians make bible-cycles and drive them since wells are based on non bible science LOL. Is it even possible to make something remotely looking like a circle and having a “ pseudo Pi “ = 3 (I think its impossible )? LOL I will make a fortune on building new “ bible circles “ for Christians !
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download
- Login to post comments
Offline Not only does 1 Kings 7:23 seem to give a ridiculous value for pi - it is also MIS-SPELLED!! (And the Jews are so particular about their scripture that no copyist would think of changing a mis-spelling in the original, they'd just note the correction in the margin.)
The Hebrew word for circumference is 'qv', but in this verse, the scribes write it 'qvh'!! (you'd say 'qav' - but hebrew, like arabic doesn't write the vowels).
We got our number system from India and Arabia, but in earlier times, LETTERS were used to represent numbers (eg - roman numerals). Hebrew used all the letters of the alphabet to represent numbers, and when you take the ratio of the mis-spelling to the correct spelling, and multiply by the 3 that's explicit in the text, you get:
'qvh' / 'qv' * 3 = ((100 + 6 + 5) / (100 + 6)) * 3 = 333/106 = 3.141509 which is correct to 4 decimal places. Pretty good for an ancient culture that didn't have decimals.
Thanks to Chuck Missler at Khouse.org for this derivation (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/)
When you think you find an error in the Bible, look closer - it's probably pointing to something important.
- Login to post comments
Offline Not only does 1 Kings 7:23 seem to give a ridiculous value for pi, it is also MIS-SPELLED in the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word for circumference is 'qv' (you'd say 'qav', but Hebrew, does not write vowels), but in this verse, it's written 'qvh'!!
There's something funny about Hebrew though - they use letters for numbers (sort of like the Romans used i, v, x - except Hebrew uses all the letters for numbers). So every word has a numerical value. 'qv' for instance is 100 + 6 = 106. It's mis-spelling in this case is 100+6+5=111.
A funny thing happens when you take the ratio of the 'error' to the correct word and multiply by the 3 that's explicit in the text:
111 / 106 *3 = 3.141509 which is less than 9/100000 off from the actual value. So in 4 "numerals" (counting the one for the 3) the Bible does give a pretty accurate rendering of pi.
Thanks to Chuck Missler at khouse.org for this derivation (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/)
== When you think you've found an error in the Bible, look closer - it's probably pointing to something important!! ==
(apologies if this is double posted - site registration interrupted the posting)
- Login to post comments
Offline carx wrote:This is the kind of misstatement of the Bible that drives me up a wall, though you get some partial credit for at least posting a link to the Biblical text, so anyone who wants to do so can go read it for himself/herself. Where in 1 Kings 7 do you see that the molten sea was circular? Ovals are round all about, too (no sharp angles), so the molten sea was obviously an oval with a circumference 3 times the width at the narrowest point.GOD tells us PI= 3 !BTW, God didn't write the Book of Kings.
HisWillness wrote:Hares and rabbits do chew their cud, they just excrete it before chewing. The Bible does not say that insects have only four legs. Leviticus 11:23 says Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth. Grasshoppers (including locusts) and some beetles walk on four legs and use two legs to hop (thus the "hopper" in "grasshopper" ). On the other hand, a praying mantis is an insect that walks on four feet but does not have two legs devoted to hopping, and therefore would not have been clean to eat (their prayers were obviously answered!). The ancient Israelites, for whom insects probably formed a good part of their diet, would have understood this.Has it ever been a serious argument? I thought it was a kind of teasing joke, like the four-legged insects or the rabbit chewing cud. But then, I can't imagine taking the bible literally, so seriously arguing about it is nonsensical to me.I'm a bit surprised you didn't mention that Deuteronomy 14:19, which says that creeping flying things are not to be eaten, without exception. That usually gets athiests all riled up after they learn in Leviticus 11 that grasshoppers and some beetles are kosher.
I guess you missed that "circular in shape" part of the first sentence.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Where are our math people?
What would a circle derived from Pi=3 look like?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
This argument shits me to tears. Read the section that's quoted again and answer this question: Is it, or is it not, a blueprint?
If you answered it is, then good friggin luck building a copy going from those plans, so much is missing it's not funny. If you think it is not, then explain to me why exact measurements are required to be given? Surely if it's not a blueprint then they can just round off numbers to give the reader and better and faster understanding of the size, scale, and design of the structure? Books, news articles, magazines etc do that all the time. If they're just giving a concept of size, then those innacurate measurements do not under any circumstance mean the bible says Pi = 3.
Please, for the love of FSM people, stop using this argument or giving it any time! It's pathetic.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
ROFL...
I admit, I hadn't given this any thought because I've never used this as an argument. Personally, I think arguing biblical errancy with a theist is just retarded. Anyone who can't see that it's internally contradictory is not using reason and so cannot be reasoned with. If someone really doesn't know that the bible is errant, I'll show them, but that's the end of the discussion for me.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Has it ever been a serious argument? I thought it was a kind of teasing joke, like the four-legged insects or the rabbit chewing cud. But then, I can't imagine taking the bible literally, so seriously arguing about it is nonsensical to me.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I also have a hard time knowing when to take bible talk seriously. Anytime someone says something about the bible, I chuckle aloud... just in case.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
http://www.1john57.com/1kings723.htm
I just love the fevered intensity that possesses the fundy when he thinks he has some scientific evidence that some part of Bible is true. He's like a parched man in the desert drinking at an oasis of truth.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Hi everyone,
This is my first post on RRS and I find myself in this thread first for no particular reason. I guess it is as good a place to start as any. So here it goes.
Jeffrick, you are close but not quite right technically. Mathematically, pi as we know it is a 2D Euclidean geometric concept (I'll get to non-Euclidean in a moment). Also, it is defined as the ratio of the area to the square of the radius. A radius (in 2D space) is a concept unique to circles. Any shape without corners that isn't a circle (e.g. an "egg" or ellipse) doesn't have a radius. Thus it is impossible to have a non-circle conceptualization of pi since only circles have radii. Now if you move into non-Euclidean spaces, it might be possible to have a "circle" where pi wasn't 3.14 but I'll leave it there for now.
Instead of a Blog
Think this can't work? - Think again.
"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased...And if socialism really is better...then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist shit and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction
Yeah, another newbie? And not afraid to just jump right in. Thanx for the post and welcome !!
Not exactly a newbie though, where you been ?
I'm not sure I understand your comment about "not exactly a newbie". Do we know each other?
Instead of a Blog
Think this can't work? - Think again.
"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased...And if socialism really is better...then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist shit and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction
It is not a big issue to me, because I believe the Bible to be less-than-perfect in many ways. And though pi = 3 is about 5% too small, it is not as good an approximation as was found by some of the Bible writers' contemporaries.
In particular, the author of the Ahmes Papyrus, a.k.a. the Rhind Papyrus of Egypt, who wrote around 1650 BCE, used an approximation for pi that was around 256/81, or about 3.16.
And Archimedes (287-212 BCE) discovered some infinite series that can be used to calculate pi, and he found that number to be between 223/71 and 22/7, or 3.1408 and 3.1429.
-
But it is a problem for the hypothesis of the absolute perfection of the Bible, which is what all too many Xian apologists claim. Though they often turn weaselly when challenged about this. It is a common sort of thing among irrationalists and crackpots -- to make very strong claims when advocating their positions, and to get weaselly about them and even deny them when challenged.
Hey, before anyone goes and makes fun of the christian's bicycles with egg-shaped wheels, consider the potential use as an exercise bike. It would be pretty hard to pedal, burn a lot of calories. God screwing up Pi just might have some benefit after all!
It simply wouldn't. It's an internally contradictory notion. Pi is the ratio between a circle's diameter and its circumference. Since a circle is defined as a geometric object such that each point on the circle is exactly the same distance from a certain point, by definition, only a circle can have a diameter, and by definition, the ratio of the diameter of the circle and the circumference must be pi. Only circles (or spheres) have diameters. It's simply meaningless to state that the ratio between the diameter and circumference could be anything other than pi, since if it is a different number, then whatever length ratio is being discussed isn't the diameter!
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Huh? The ratio between the diameter and the radius is always 2:1. A circle is defined as a geometric object such that every point on the circle is equidistant from a particular point. The diameter is defined as a straight line from one point on the circle to another point on the circle such that this line passes through that particular point from which all points on the circle are equidistant to, and the radius is defined as a straight line from a particular point on the circle to the particular point which all points on the circle are equidistant from. Pi is the ratio between the circumfrence and diameter, not the radius and diameter.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Breathe, dude. It was an unintended mistake.
I had both definitions in my head (circumference to diameter vs. area to square of radius) and it came out all wrong because I was probably distracted or tired or both when I wrote it. I had abot 10 minutes to catch by bus. Sorry to waste your time having to go in depth on the wonders of circles. Note that I corrected it above so no one will get confused.
Instead of a Blog
Think this can't work? - Think again.
"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased...And if socialism really is better...then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist shit and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction
Yeah, what deludedgod said...wait, what I said...or rather...oh nevermind.
Instead of a Blog
Think this can't work? - Think again.
"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased...And if socialism really is better...then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist shit and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction
From our perspective it would look like a circle. Space would need to be curved quite a bit for that to happen though.
-----------------------------
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm
Well, a hexagon might work for this bit. The perimeter is six times the distance from the center to any corner. But then the molten sea stops being round.
Honestly, this one has been around long enough that Christians have come up with many so-called explanations such as the “inner diameter” one. My favorite one is the excuse that the molten sea refers to the metal that was poured into the casting mold, which then cooled and contracted. The larger circumference being the size of the mold and the smaller diameter being the size of the finished product. However, that brings up another problem, specifically that bronze expands in a mold as it sets.
Whatever. Literalism brings out all kinds of weirdness. And that part of the bible is so full of specifications that nearly every verse can be questioned on some ground. For example, 1 Kings chapter 6 is quite specific that Solomon built the temple. It says so several times even to the point where god speaks directly to Solomon about the fact that he is building the temple.
OK, so if that is the literal truth, then I would ask any theist to tell me what the Israelites were doing while Solomon was hauling all of those huge stone blocks around? The bible is silent on that matter but the size of the things is often specified and they were much too big for one person to move. Did they all stand around having coffee while their King did all of the hard work? Did nobody, even once, approach him and say “Hey Solomon, you look like you could use a hand with that one”.?
=
It wouldn't. Sorry to repeat this point, but the number 3.141592654... is deeply imprinted into the very fabric of reality. I usually hold a mathematical tribute in my signature. The one I have now is the set of four Maxwell equations in both integral and differential form. Before that, however, I had an even more famous one, which Richard Feynmann called "our gem". Euler's formula. eiπ+1=0. The most beautiful identity in all mathematics. eix traces a unit circle in the complex plane. The number pi cannot be anything else. The number e (2.71828182....) is just as imprinted into reality.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
BTW, God didn't write the Book of Kings.
I'm a bit surprised you didn't mention that Deuteronomy 14:19, which says that creeping flying things are not to be eaten, without exception. That usually gets athiests all riled up after they learn in Leviticus 11 that grasshoppers and some beetles are kosher.
Once an athiest, now a believer, and always ready to debate issues respectfully.