The Evil One

I'm sure he did. When I say "a greater degree of accuracy in the quoted measurements than the text can support" I mean that there is nothing in the text to suggest to us that a greater degree of accuracy than "to the nearest integer" is intended for the measurements of the object in question.

I do not see how "the Bible is the word of a perfect God" implies that "the Bible will give the measurements of circular objects to a greater degree of accuracy than 'to the nearest integer'." Perhaps you can explain this.

To zero decimal places, 10 and 30 are perfectly acceptable measurements for a circle. I don't see anything in the conception of a perfect God to prevent him from giving measurements to zero decimal places.

The word "diameter" isn't used.

All we can really infer is that the sea is round - which doesn't necessarily mean a perfect circle - ; that from one edge to another edge - presumably meaning, going through the centre - is ten cubits (to what degree of accuracy? not specified); it's five cubits high; and a line (query: does this mean a rope?) of thirty cubits will reach around it.

Note what aren't mentioned: circle, circumference, diameter, pi. All these concepts have to be inserted into the text by the reader. My position is that a Biblical error based on inserting geometric concepts into a text which cannot be proven to contain them is not what you would call "solid".

Oh come on, I know this was addressed to Vinnie, but this is blatant shifting of the burden of proof. The mere possibility of a non-cylindrical pool is sufficient to establish that the measurements given do not necessarily indicate an error.

As a mathematician, when you round to the nearest integer (or to any number of decimal places) I'm sure you explicitly say that the value thus obtained is an approximation. However, in everyday usage, people don't. In everyday usage, people just round to the nearest integer and leave it at that. In the absence of evidence that the Bible is not rounding to the nearest integer in the verse in question, it is impossible to treat this as a "solid" error.

You have no evidence that the Sea was geometrically circular. You have no evidence that a greater degree of accuracy than zero decimal places is being used. Without knowing these two things, you cannot support this contradiction. QED.

Agreed.

Sparrow

My only problem here is that IF it was circular, and IF the measurements were taken at the same point (and usually they are), THEN 31 is a better integer value for the circumference than 30.

Suppose that the vessel were elliptical, 10 units across in the long dimension and 9 across in the short. The circumference would be appoximately 29.88 units long. Now this is not in the text, but it is a possible explanation for the craftsmanship of bronze age goat herders. They did not have laser guided 5 axis CNC machinery.

This to me is a weak contradiction. However I still believe the babble is like a pile of dogcrap.

The Evil One

Only assuming that the diameter is 10. If the diameter were 9.6 (which rounds to 10) then the circumference would be 30.2 (which rounds to 30).

Vinnie

If it not perfectly circlar but circular in shape you have issues. From my article. If its not a perfect cylinder then your objection is illusionary. I demonstrated this in my article with the rim thing.

ANd my concluswion was not for ACCURACY here. Quite the contrary:

If we have no evidence either way how can we press this as an error or a non-error? Unless we have reason to think the object did or did not have a rim or it was//was not a perfect shape we can't tell. Both sides (pro and con) make assumptions here. Like many other surface anomalies in the Bible, this one is deemed non-liquet.

Vinnie

Sauron

I don't know if that's true or not - but assuming that it is, I don't see how it helps your position.

The original poster claimed:
3) Exodus 17:14 - Yahweh announces that he will completely blot out Amaleq from memory and no-one shall remember it's existence. Unfortunately, there is a permanent reminder of the existence of Amaleq recorded in the book of Exodus itself!

granting you your point for a moment, how does a lack of knowing what a people called themselves in their own language prove your point? Especially in a period of human history where many groups had no written language?

We don't know for sure what the Phoenicians called themselves either, nor is anything known of their homeland. Britannica:

It is not certain what the Phoenicians called themselves in their own language; it appears to have been Kena'ani (Akkadian: Kinahna), "Canaanites." In Hebrew the word kena'ani has the secondary meaning of "merchant," a term that well characterizes the Phoenicians. The Phoenicians probably arrived in the area about 3000 BC. Nothing is known of their original homeland, though some traditions place it in the region of the Persian Gulf.

Would you also argue that the Phoenicians have been "blotted out from memory, and no one remembers their existence"?

The condition put forth by Exodus is fairly concrete and not really open to "creative interpretation." Unfortunately, the available evidence shows that neither group (Amalekites or Phoenicians) satisifies that condition.

Goliath

Unproven assertion. (and even if you did prove it, then the passage is still in error, as "diameter" would then be utterly meaningless).

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Okay, then draw an ellipse (that is not a circle) and measure its diameter.

Until you can do that, you are refuted.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

The bible is allegedly an instruction manual from a perfect god, whence it must be perfectly accurate.

Allegedly, the bible is the perfect word of a perfect god, and must therefore contain no error.

Again, this is crap that I learned very early on as a child.

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

If the pool wasn't circular, then the phrase "ten cubits from one brim to the other" would be meaningless.

No, a possibility is not anywhere near good enough. I cannot write a paper saying "It's possible that the Riemann Hypothesis is correct!" and expect anyone to take it seriously.

Correct.

Their problem, not mine.

Sincerely,

Goliath

The Evil One

Again, I do not see how you get from "Perfectly accurate" to "gives the measurements of Solomon's furniture to a greater degree of precision than 0 decimal places".


Rounding to the nearest integer isn't error. It's rounding to the nearest integer.

You have yet to explain why you feel a perfect God cannot round to the nearest integer, as per common everyday practice.



No, it would mean that the Sea was ten cubits from one brim to the other.

"Not containing a precise set of geometrical dimensions" does not imply "meaningless" since human language, as you are aware, is not maths.

The passage gives a general impression of the size of the thing rather than the precise mathematical dimensions you seem to be convinced must be in there.

Or in other words, I don't see why saying how wide the bloody thing was from edge to edge necessarily implies the diameter of a geometrically circular artefact.



If it is a rebuttal to someone else saying "The Riemann Hypothesis is necessarily incorrect!" then "The Riemann Hypothesis is possibly correct!" would be a perfectly appropriate argument to make and publish.

Whatever the Riemann Hypothesis may be.

For some one who is so precious over the mathematical details of a non-mathematical text, you are being very cavalier with certain points of logic.

I'll spell it out for you:

If A has asserted that Interpretation X is the only possible valid interpretation of T (ie that no interpretation but X is possibly valid), then to rebut A, it is only necessary to show that Interpretation Y is possibly valid. It is not necessary to show that Interpretation Y is actually the correct interpretation of T, or even that Y is a likely interpretation of T, to undermine A's stance.

Or in other words, the mere possibility of a non-cylindrical Sea is sufficient to disprove the claim that the passage in question necessarily indicates an incorrect value for pi.


I am glad you accept that in everyday, non-mathematical usage, it is not re=quired or even customary to state that one is rounding a measurement to the nearest integer.

Given that that is the case, why do you think that a perfect God could not use this everyday usage in a discussion of Solomon's furniture?



A separate issue that arises from this is that, although I do not believe one can make an Argument from Error from this passage, one can very easily make an Argument from Confusion (God wouldn't have allowed a passage into the Bible that would cause the kind of confusion that reigns on this thread).

Goliath

Because saying that pi=3 is not accurate. I don't know how to make myself any more clear than that.

If it isn't perfectly round, then the description is meaningless: 10 cubits from what part of what edge to what part of what other edge?


It isn't. Stop putting words in my mouth, please.

But if it is unknown whether or not Y is valid, then how is that an argument?

Because the bible is supposed to be perfect.

Sincerely,

Goliath