GOD tells us PI= 3 !

carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
GOD tells us PI= 3 !

 

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 Laughing out loud .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


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Where are our math people?

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


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2386
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Math

Hambydammit wrote:

Where are our math people?

What would a circle derived from Pi=3 look like?

 

   It would look like an egg in one dimention.  Which makes modern machinery impossible,  imagine cams, cogs and wheels shaped ovate .  By deffinition it would not--- it could not be called a circle.

"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?


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: GOD tells us

carx wrote:

 

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 Laughing out loud .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 !

 

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/


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Please, for the love

Quote:
Please, for the love of FSM people, stop using this argument or giving it any time!  It's pathetic.

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
thingy wrote:Please, for the

thingy wrote:

Please, for the love of FSM people, stop using this argument or giving it any time!  It's pathetic.

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


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I also have a hard time

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


Lot2
Theist
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-03-05
User is offlineOffline
http://www.1john57.com/1kings

Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
I just love the fevered

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


Neverfox
Neverfox's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-07-01
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Hambydammit

Jeffrick wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Where are our math people?

What would a circle derived from Pi=3 look like?

 

   It would look like an egg in one dimention.  Which makes modern machinery impossible,  imagine cams, cogs and wheels shaped ovate .  By deffinition it would not--- it could not be called a circle.

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


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Way to go

Neverfox wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Where are our math people?

What would a circle derived from Pi=3 look like?

 

   It would look like an egg in one dimention.  Which makes modern machinery impossible,  imagine cams, cogs and wheels shaped ovate .  By deffinition it would not--- it could not be called a circle.

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 diameter to 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.

 

  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 ?


Neverfox
Neverfox's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-07-01
User is offlineOffline
Boon Docks wrote:  Yeah,

Boon Docks wrote:

  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


lpetrich
lpetrich's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
It is not a big issue to me,

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.


K9sByte
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote: It would

Jeffrick wrote:

 It would look like an egg in one dimention.  Which makes modern machinery impossible,  imagine cams, cogs and wheels shaped ovate .  By deffinition it would not--- it could not be called a circle.

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! 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Where are our math

Quote:

Where are our math people?

What would a circle derived from Pi=3 look like?

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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Also, it is defined as

Quote:

Also, it is defined as the ratio of the diameter to the radius.

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


Neverfox
Neverfox's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-07-01
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:Also,

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Also, it is defined as the ratio of the diameter to the radius.

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.

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


Neverfox
Neverfox's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-07-01
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:Where

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

Where are our math people?

What would a circle derived from Pi=3 look like?

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!

 

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


Wikinite
Wikinite's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-06-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Where are

Hambydammit wrote:

Where are our math people?

What would a circle derived from Pi=3 look like?

 

 

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


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, a hexagon might

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”.?

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What would a circle

Quote:

What would a circle derived from Pi=3 look like?

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. e+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


RespectfulButBe...
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
this makes me hopping mad

carx wrote:
GOD tells us PI= 3 !
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.

BTW, God didn't write the Book of Kings.

 

HisWillness wrote:
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.
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.

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.


DTG (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The funny thing is - this verse DOES tell us pi

 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.


DTG (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The funny thing is - this verse DOES tell us pi

 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)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
RespectfulButBelieving

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:

carx wrote:
GOD tells us PI= 3 !
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.

BTW, God didn't write the Book of Kings.

 

HisWillness wrote:
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.
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.

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
DTG wrote: Not only does 1

DTG wrote:

 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)

So if the data makes no sense as it is given - change it until it does?

Reminds me of the Japanese gaming out the battle of Midway - they kept changing the data for the enemy side until they won the scenario they had gamed out. When the plan was implemented, they discovered that the American forces weren't polite enough to cooperate with their scenario.

"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


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: GOD tells us

carx wrote:

 

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 Laughing out loud .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 !

 

In modern mathematical calculations pi, which denotes the ration of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is generally a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. It is actually more accurate to say that pi can be carried to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even 3.1415926535 can be used.

Bible skeptics often conclude that the Bible writers of 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the circular molten sea in the courtyard of Solomon's temple was ten cubits from brim to brim and that "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it" can't be correct because it is impossible to have a circle with these two values.

How, the short sighted skeptic asks, could God's word being written under inspiration be so inaccurate?

Short sighted because the decimal point didn't exist at the time so it would have been pointless - ha - and because, as Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth, quoting Rennie, said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."

The Bible student, using reason and research over the baseless speculation of the unwashed heathen knows that the molten sea was 10 cubits (15 feet) in diameter and it took a line of 30 cubits (45 feet) to encompass it. A ratio of one to three was adequate for the sake of a record.

 


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Lot2

That's one seriously big ass hand. How did they ever find gloves?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:carx

David Henson wrote:

carx wrote:

 

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 Laughing out loud .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 !

 

In modern mathematical calculations pi, which denotes the ration of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is generally a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. It is actually more accurate to say that pi can be carried to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even 3.1415926535 can be used.

Bible skeptics often conclude that the Bible writers of 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the circular molten sea in the courtyard of Solomon's temple was ten cubits from brim to brim and that "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it" can't be correct because it is impossible to have a circle with these two values.

How, the short sighted skeptic asks, could God's word being written under inspiration be so inaccurate?

Short sighted because the decimal point didn't exist at the time so it would have been pointless - ha - and because, as Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth, quoting Rennie, said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."

The Bible student, using reason and research over the baseless speculation of the unwashed heathen knows that the molten sea was 10 cubits (15 feet) in diameter and it took a line of 30 cubits (45 feet) to encompass it. A ratio of one to three was adequate for the sake of a record.

 

We can't take the Bible seriously on math and science. No problem.

any particular reason why we should take it seriously on religion?

"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


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:We can't take

jcgadfly wrote:

We can't take the Bible seriously on math and science. No problem.

any particular reason why we should take it seriously on religion?

 

On religion? I don't know exactly what you mean by that. I don't care much for religion because it distorts the original teachings. Taoism and Christianity are the most obvious examples, though no religion has remained true to itself or ever will. I personally think that if as an outspoken unbeliever one chooses to criticize the Bible that is reason enough to take it seriously, but I think that educating ones self on what the Bible teaches, especially in light of Christendom's obviously having misrepresented and abused it would be another good reason to take it seriously. By taking it seriously I don't mean accept it's claims of the supernatural, but to simply look past the misunderstanding. Hell, for example

 

The Bible doesn't say that the universe or earth was created in 6 literal days, that "bad" people go to hell or that "good" people go to heaven, that Jesus died on a cross or that there will be a rapture, or the soul is immortal . . . or that Christians are the moral police of the globe etc.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

We can't take the Bible seriously on math and science. No problem.

any particular reason why we should take it seriously on religion?

 

On religion? I don't know exactly what you mean by that. I don't care much for religion because it distorts the original teachings. Taoism and Christianity are the most obvious examples, though no religion has remained true to itself or ever will. I personally think that if as an outspoken unbeliever one chooses to criticize the Bible that is reason enough to take it seriously, but I think that educating ones self on what the Bible teaches, especially in light of Christendom's obviously having misrepresented and abused it would be another good reason to take it seriously. By taking it seriously I don't mean accept it's claims of the supernatural, but to simply look past the misunderstanding. Hell, for example

 

The Bible doesn't say that the universe or earth was created in 6 literal days, that "bad" people go to hell or that "good" people go to heaven, that Jesus died on a cross or that there will be a rapture, or the soul is immortal . . . or that Christians are the moral police of the globe etc.

OK - look past the misunderstandings and see what? If your link answered that question - it doesn't work.

"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


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Corrected LInk

See the truth. As in what it really says. Accept or deny it based upon that, with, as I did and your signature suggests, readiness to doubt.

Sorry about the link, here is the corrected one. Does Hell Exist?

 


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

We can't take the Bible seriously on math and science. No problem.

any particular reason why we should take it seriously on religion?

 

On religion? I don't know exactly what you mean by that. I don't care much for religion because it distorts the original teachings. Taoism and Christianity are the most obvious examples, though no religion has remained true to itself or ever will. I personally think that if as an outspoken unbeliever one chooses to criticize the Bible that is reason enough to take it seriously, but I think that educating ones self on what the Bible teaches, especially in light of Christendom's obviously having misrepresented and abused it would be another good reason to take it seriously. By taking it seriously I don't mean accept it's claims of the supernatural, but to simply look past the misunderstanding. Hell, for example

 

The Bible doesn't say that the universe or earth was created in 6 literal days, that "bad" people go to hell or that "good" people go to heaven, that Jesus died on a cross or that there will be a rapture, or the soul is immortal . . . or that Christians are the moral police of the globe etc.

 

Is Pathway Machine your website?

What was Jesus nailed to?

Your idea on the soul sounds like Seventh-Day Adventism. Are or were you one?

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Is Pathway

ex-minister wrote:

Is Pathway Machine your website?

What was Jesus nailed to?

Your idea on the soul sounds like Seventh-Day Adventism. Are or were you one?

 

The Pathway Machine is mine, yes. Jesus was nailed to a xylon or simple, single, upright stake. The Hebrew torture stake. I have never belonged to any organized religion but my personal beliefs can most closely resemble the Jehovah's Witnesses, who, now that you mention it, took a number of the Seventh-Day Adventism's stuff. There is no such thing as an original Christian or Rock 'n Roll you know.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:See the

David Henson wrote:

See the truth. As in what it really says. Accept or deny it based upon that, with, as I did and your signature suggests, readiness to doubt.

Sorry about the link, here is the corrected one. Does Hell Exist?

 

So if we pull:

1. all the stuff that has pagan influences

2. all the mistranslations

3. all the contradictions

4. all the errors

What truth is there to see that can't be gleaned from better sources?

 

"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


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

ex-minister wrote:

Is Pathway Machine your website?

What was Jesus nailed to?

Your idea on the soul sounds like Seventh-Day Adventism. Are or were you one?

 

The Pathway Machine is mine, yes. Jesus was nailed to a xylon or simple, single, upright stake. The Hebrew torture stake. I have never belonged to any organized religion but my personal beliefs can most closely resemble the Jehovah's Witnesses, who, now that you mention it, took a number of the Seventh-Day Adventism's stuff. There is no such thing as an original Christian or Rock 'n Roll you know.

 

I see a picture of the xylon here

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/cross-or-stake.php

Could one name through the wrists really support the weight of a human body?

At least with the cross you can tie the arms.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So if we

jcgadfly wrote:

So if we pull:

1. all the stuff that has pagan influences

Baptism has pagan roots. Tombstones, windchimes, months in the Jewish calendar, wedding rings. There is nothing wrong with these things. As long as they don't conflict with the Bible's teachings or are not introduced in a religious context as the Bible's teachings there is no harm in them. Its when you teach pagan mythology like the immortal soul from Socrates, or the trinity from Plato, or the Cross from Constantine, or hell from Milton and Dante, or the Rapture from John Darby, or Easter from the goddess Astarte, and Christmas from the winter solstice as Bible teachings when they are not that they become problematic.

jcgadfly wrote:
2. all the mistranslations

Hmmm . . . consider the Targums, an Aramaic word which means "interpretation" or "paraphrase." These are not very accurate translations but they offer an amazing glimps at the background through text which does a great deal in explaining what was going on in the culture of the time the Jews spoke this language. Or consider the palimpsests, which is recycled manuscripts which are scraped of their ink and used again. Some old manuscript of the Bible can sometimes be gleaned from beneath the surface text.

Mistranslations can be a misnomer. If I say a robe is red and someone else says it is scarlet it could be a question of lighting, time of day, or perception.  Even color blindness. Maybe you want to get a broader picture to see which is most correct and why there is a difference. This is why there are four gospels.

jcgadfly wrote:
3. all the contradictions.

This is my first discussion group, though I have posted on many forums. On many skeptic and atheist forums it was a game of mine to challenge any alleged contradictions they might have and of the countless challenges I have never had a contradiction I couldn't debunk and explain, many times to the satisfaction of the skeptic. I have even had Dan Barker's stuff thrown at me and wasn't impressed. Now, there are actually contradictions I can't explain other than to say they were obviously copyist errors but all of those involve the copying of numbers, a bit tricky even for the sopherim.

jcgadfly wrote:
4. all the errors

I don't know exactly what you mean when you say errors. Contradictions with "known" science? Translational anomalies? Spurious scriptures? The beauty of the Bible and all of the manuscripts that have been discovered, since, say . . . King James' day, errors can be corrected by a comparison of manuscripts.

jcgadfly wrote:
What truth is there to see that can't be gleaned from better sources?

You can't find a better source. Even if the Bible hadn't been inspired the strict devotion to copying of the Sopherim was unbeatable. The sheer volume of material you have to work with . . . compare the Bible to Livy, Tacitus, Thucydides, Caesar's Gallic War, Herodotus or any secular work. They don't even come close.

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:I see a

ex-minister wrote:

I see a picture of the xylon here

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/cross-or-stake.php

Could one name through the wrists really support the weight of a human body?

At least with the cross you can tie the arms.

In 1968, just NE of Jerusalem excavation of a Jew who had been hung on the xylon in the 1st century C.E. Still nailed to the stake the nail in his ankle was 4.5 inches (11.5 cm) long.

 


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

ex-minister wrote:

I see a picture of the xylon here

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/cross-or-stake.php

Could one name through the wrists really support the weight of a human body?

At least with the cross you can tie the arms.

In 1968, just NE of Jerusalem excavation of a Jew who had been hung on the xylon in the 1st century C.E. Still nailed to the stake the nail in his ankle was 4.5 inches (11.5 cm) long.

 

Unless his name was Jesus, I fail to see the relevance. Non sequitur argument. One man died on a xylon. Jesus died on either a xylon or cross. Therefore Jesus died on a xylon? I'm beginning to wonder if you're even worth conversing with.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
JonathanBC wrote:Unless his

JonathanBC wrote:

Unless his name was Jesus, I fail to see the relevance. Non sequitur argument. One man died on a xylon. Jesus died on either a xylon or cross. Therefore Jesus died on a xylon? I'm beginning to wonder if you're even worth conversing with.

I'm beginning to think the same about you. Jesus was a very common name, the relevance is in establishing the length of the nail.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So if we pull:

1. all the stuff that has pagan influences

Baptism has pagan roots. Tombstones, windchimes, months in the Jewish calendar, wedding rings. There is nothing wrong with these things. As long as they don't conflict with the Bible's teachings or are not introduced in a religious context as the Bible's teachings there is no harm in them. Its when you teach pagan mythology like the immortal soul from Socrates, or the trinity from Plato, or the Cross from Constantine, or hell from Milton and Dante, or the Rapture from John Darby, or Easter from the goddess Astarte, and Christmas from the winter solstice as Bible teachings when they are not that they become problematic.

jcgadfly wrote:
2. all the mistranslations

Hmmm . . . consider the Targums, an Aramaic word which means "interpretation" or "paraphrase." These are not very accurate translations but they offer an amazing glimps at the background through text which does a great deal in explaining what was going on in the culture of the time the Jews spoke this language. Or consider the palimpsests, which is recycled manuscripts which are scraped of their ink and used again. Some old manuscript of the Bible can sometimes be gleaned from beneath the surface text.

Mistranslations can be a misnomer. If I say a robe is red and someone else says it is scarlet it could be a question of lighting, time of day, or perception.  Even color blindness. Maybe you want to get a broader picture to see which is most correct and why there is a difference. This is why there are four gospels.

jcgadfly wrote:
3. all the contradictions.

This is my first discussion group, though I have posted on many forums. On many skeptic and atheist forums it was a game of mine to challenge any alleged contradictions they might have and of the countless challenges I have never had a contradiction I couldn't debunk and explain, many times to the satisfaction of the skeptic. I have even had Dan Barker's stuff thrown at me and wasn't impressed. Now, there are actually contradictions I can't explain other than to say they were obviously copyist errors but all of those involve the copying of numbers, a bit tricky even for the sopherim.

jcgadfly wrote:
4. all the errors

I don't know exactly what you mean when you say errors. Contradictions with "known" science? Translational anomalies? Spurious scriptures? The beauty of the Bible and all of the manuscripts that have been discovered, since, say . . . King James' day, errors can be corrected by a comparison of manuscripts.

jcgadfly wrote:
What truth is there to see that can't be gleaned from better sources?

You can't find a better source. Even if the Bible hadn't been inspired the strict devotion to copying of the Sopherim was unbeatable. The sheer volume of material you have to work with . . . compare the Bible to Livy, Tacitus, Thucydides, Caesar's Gallic War, Herodotus or any secular work. They don't even come close.

 

If I'm wrong, correct me but...

Now you're giving me the "Look at all the copies of the Bible we have - It and the God it describes must be true" argument (a la Josh McDowell)?

Having worse copies of bad copies doesn't seem like a good thing.

Look up Bart Ehrman's stuff.

"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


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
David Henson - cross vs xylon

Wouldn't you agree a cross makes a better necklace than a xylon?

The obelisk was taken anyway.

 

 

I suspect with your JW background you might find all these crosses everywhere as offensive as an atheist.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

JonathanBC wrote:

Unless his name was Jesus, I fail to see the relevance. Non sequitur argument. One man died on a xylon. Jesus died on either a xylon or cross. Therefore Jesus died on a xylon? I'm beginning to wonder if you're even worth conversing with.

I'm beginning to think the same about you. Jesus was a very common name, the relevance is in establishing the length of the nail.

I was being sarcastic about the name because you make me laugh with your logical fallacies. I don't need to contest the length of the nail, it doesn't matter in the least. I could easily argue with you for pages about the logistics of early execution, it wouldn't matter. I could go in depth and point out that nails were actually uncommon, because it was easier to simply tie the arm, which requires a cross. I could point to a hundred crucifixions for every xylon you find. But, again, it's unnecessary. I can and have torn apart your argument with your own non sequitur syllogism.

If I grant your evidence of a single nail, and I grant your translation, you've still proven absolutely nothing. I do contest your translation, for the record. You've no training in ancient Greek or Hebrew, but you still bring up what the Bible "really says" every chance you get.