Vinnie

THe pi error should be dropped from the secular curriculum.

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/pibible.html

gagster

Actually, I think there are twenty-four.


Greg

gagster

Negative. If a young child came to me and said what the bible says, I'd assume, probably correctly, that he didn't understand pi. Given that the bible was written by a bunch of uneducated shephards, why should I conclude anything different about them?

If the bible really was written by god, there are several ways he could have avoided this error:

1. He could have made pi exactly three - he is supposed to be all powerful, after all.
2. He could have used the word "approximately". That seems like a pretty obvious solution.
3. He could have simply omitted the diameter or circumference from the description. They are functions of each other, after all. The fact that both were supplied sure makes it sound like the author didn't realize that.

This is an error I wouldn't accept in a fifth grade schoolbook, why should I accept it in what is supposed to be the most important book of all time?


Greg

Steven Carr

What do you mean implied? 'Qatan naar' means young boys and is translated that way everywhere else in the Bible.

I challenge you to find one place in the Bible where 'qatan naar' is not translated as 'little boy', or 'small child'.

More Bible denial. There is nothing about Elijah being taken up. The word you are trying to mean 'take up' just means , basically, travelling, and is used in the very passage to mean Elijah going from one place to another, just as any ordinary human meant.

'And he went up (alah) from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up (alah) by the way,...'

Is the Bible taunting ELijah by describing how he 'went up' (alah) unto Bethel?

Talk about Bible-denial! The very passage uses this supposeldy 'taunting' word, in a way that shows it was a perfectly ordinary word.

And there is nothing about these children them mocking God (Should God-mockers be killed anyway?)

And where comes the idea that a prophet should not cut his hair? Are you thinking of Nazirites? Not all prophets were Nazirites?

'Mob' 'angry' and 'men' are all words not to be found in the Bible.

But Bible deniers will just rewrite stories they don't like.

This is actually what the Bible says.

But people deny the Bible means what it says.

Pendaric

Perhaps not exactly what you are looking for, but:

Matthew 4: 8

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
============================================

In order to see all the kingdoms of the world, the earth would have to be flat. No matter how high the mountain, you cannot see all the areas of the earth from it because of the fact that it is a sphere.

There are various other references throughout the bible that indicate the writers were under the impression that the earth was flat, although I haven't got them to hand.

Vinnie

Show me where the bible ever even mentions "pi". Quote the passage please and demonstate in an unambiguous fashion that the Bible cleary states pi is three. You can't because it doesn't. You have to read pi in.

Vinnie

The Evil One

I'm with Vinnie on this one. To say that the Bible asserts pi to be 3 is to assert a greater degree of accuracy in the quoted measurements than the text can support.

gagster

In I Kings 7:23 it mentions that the circumference of an object is 30 cubits and its diameter is 10 cubits. It also says the object was "round all about". It may not explicitly mention pi, but you can calculate it from that and it's wrong.

If I handed you a fifth grade schoolbook with this sort of claim in it, would you accept it? I wouldn't. So why do we excuse this error in what is supposed to be the most important book of all time?


Greg

The Evil One

9.5 * pi = 29.85.
9.6 * pi = 30.16.
9.7 * pi = 30.47.

Rounding diameter and circumference to nearest integer, you get 10 and 30 in all three cases. The text does not give us any reason to suggest that a greater degree of accuracy than "to the nearest integer" is intended.

Nor can one infer from the phrase "round all about" that a perfect geometric circle is intended. Many shapes that are not perfect geometric circles can be legitimately described as "round". EG ovals, egg-shapes, roughy-drawn circles, etc.

gagster

It's not a question of precision. It's a question of what the author appears to know. Based on this (alleged) error, does this appear to be the work of an all knowing god who for no apparent reason chose to make pi an irrational number, chose to give two measurements when one was sufficient, chose to not mention that the measurements were approximate and who didn't care that this apparent error would cause people to question whether or not his bible was written by an all knowing god ~or~ does it appear to be the work of ignorant shepherds who didn't understand geometry?

To me, the latter appears to be more likely.

One of the rules that I try to follow in telling a story is that you should try to anticipate what questions or objections your audience will have and you should try to answer them. Of course, we're not all knowing, so sometimes we fail in that regard. But the bible was supposedly written by an all knowing god. So, why did he write this passage in a way that raises questions that are never answered?


Greg