GakuseiDon

1 Kings 7:26. The Bible actually says that it was shaped like a lily blossom, so it is safe to assume that the top was wider than the circumference.

Goliath

"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."

Since no mention of lilies are made, you are demonstrably wrong.

Sincerely,

Goliath

The Evil One

Pi=3 is accurate to zero decimal places.

Saying that pi=3 is not accurate is assuming that an accuracy of greater than zero decimal places is involved. This is precisely the assumption which I have argued is not valid, given the type of text we are talking about.



From some part of the near edge to some part of the far edge as seen by someone standing looking at it. I appreciate that this is tricky for a mathematician, but non-mathematicians do not customarily measure and classify the world in terms of precise geometric shapes.

If I see an impressive piece of furniture and I later tell a friend, "Cor lummee! It was round and it was ten yards from one edge to the other!" I am NOT implying that the object was a geometric cylinder, NOR am I implying that the "ten yards" measurement is a geometric diameter. Nevertheless, my friend will understand what I am attempting to convey about the size and shape of the object, so it is clear that this description is not meaningless.



Then in that case, your analogy of your paper about Riemann's Hypothesis (whatever that may be) to the current case is a false analogy, because in the current case the "it is possible" claim is a response to your "it's necessarily not possible" claim. Therefore this analogy has ceased to be productive, so see the non-analogy-using explanation that follows.



If it is unknown whether or not Y is a valid interpretation (of whatever), then two things follow: -

a) It is possible that Y is a valid interpretation.
b) It is possible that Y is not a valid interpretation.

Given that (a) is true, (c) cannot be asserted with any confidence, since (c) implies not-(a):

c) X is the only valid interpretation.

To take another example, let's consider the resurrection. Many apologetics for this miracle rest on the claim that an actual resurrection miracle is the only possible interpretation of such things as the empty tomb, the appearances, etc. To disprove this, it is only necessary to show that some naturalistic explanation could in principle account for these data. It is not necessary to show that the naturalistic explanation in question is correct or even likely. The existence of any alternative possible explanation or interpretation undermines an argument that rests on some given explanation or interpretation being the only possible explanation or interpretation.

Similarly, your case for this passage as an error rests on the notion that no interpretation of the passage is possible other than that the object described is a perfect geometric cylinder, and that the measurements given are accurate to more than zero decimal places. To undermine your case, one needs only show that some other interpretation is consistent with the text as it stands; the alternative interpretation need not be shown to be correct or even likely - just possible.

In short, we have four possible interpretations of this passage.

1) The solid described is a perfect geometric cylinder, and the measurements are given to at least 1 decimal place of accuracy.

2) The solid described has a lip or other upper protuberance, so that its measure across the diameter really is precisely 10 and its measure around the circumference really is precisely 30.

3) The base of the solid described is not a circle but an oval or other vaguely-round shape, and the "10-across" measure does not represent the diameter of a circle.

4) A perfectly cylindrical solid is described with its measurements given to the nearest integer.

Now only on interpretation (1) does the "pi" error actually exist. Therefore, if you are claiming that the "pi" error is a solid one, it is up to you to show that only (1) is a possible interpretation of the text and that (2), (3), and (4) are not possible interpretations of the text. You must not just show that they are unlikely - I personally think that (2) and (3), at any rate, are very unlikely - you must show that they are impossible.

I personally do not see that interpretations (2) to (4) can be ruled out as impossible, which is why I do not think that the "pi" error stands as a solid example of a biblical error.


It is relatively easy to make a case that a perfect text will always express things in the most contextually appropriate form, and that in the context of a non-mathematical description of some artefacts in a building, the most contextually appropriate form is the everyday usage that I have described. So the Bible being "perfect" can, in this view, be seen to actually require that it round such measurements to the nearest integer.

The Evil One

The text doesn't say the sea was "lily-shaped", but certainly there is some textual evidence that the design of the molten sea was sufficiently knobbly with decorative bits that measurements reflecting a precise geometric cylinder cannot necessarily be expected.

Sparrow

Check this definition of 'ellipse' from distionary.com:

Boldness mine

Diameter does not necessitate a circle or sphere. An elliptical object could be considered 'round all about'. This alleged error might actually be an error, but might not. Even if it's not an error, that doesn't make the bible the perfect word of a perfect god.

Madkins007

If I was unclear, I am sorry. I knew (and thought I indicated) 2 Kings 4:9 was an example of 'naar' being used for 'man' or 'young man' without the qualifier 'qatan' for young.

I am obviously not a scholar (which is why I asked the original question), but...

1. If 'naar' can mean 'man', wouldn't 'qatan naar' mean 'young man or child' based primarily on context?

2. Is there another phrase that was more commonly used for teens that you would expect to see here if they were teens or young adults (by our terms)?

3. And do you know of a resource online I can use for entire phrases? (word searches can be, as demonstrated here, annoying and potentially misleading!)

Madkins007

Goliath- before you say another word about pi and the Sea, find me in the text where it says that they measured the two from the same points on the thing.

There are many ways we can make this thing work EXACTLY as described in the Bible without violating any stated aspects of the design or logic.

- Measuring across a flange or rim for diameter, and tight up against the body for circumference.

- Measure across the top for diameter, measure at water level or some other significant place other than the top rim for circumference.

- A small amount of sag in a rope used to measure diameter would account for it easily.

- Have the whole thing be slightly out of round (not hard to imagine depending on the wall thickness!)

I find it interesting that they give the diameter, the height, THEN the circumference. This thing was pretty darn big (over 50' around and over 8' tall). Sorta makes you wonder HOW they measured it in the first place!

[Out of curiosity, anyone,- how WOULD you measure something that big around with technology from that time? What level of accuracy could you expect out of it?]


Also, the 'the bible is supposed to be perfect because god supposedly wrote it' bit is kinda old. Some fundies still believe this, but I'd bet the larger majority of Christians and Jews do not believe this literally, or with any real conviction. I know you learned it at 6 or 7, but come on- lets get past it.

Steven Carr

It is only ever translated as 'little child' or similar, except by the NIV in 2 Kings 2, because the NIV has an evangelical bias.

I don't know any other phrase used for little boy, although I imagine there is one.

Ancient Christian Bibles, such as Sianiticus) translates it in 2 Kings 2, as 'micro paidarion'.

Micro means small.

Paidarion is used twice in the New Testament. Once when Jesus says we must become like little children, and once when a boy brings barley bread for the feeding of the 5,000.

Clearly Jesus is saying that only boyz from the hood may enter the Kingdom of God.

GakuseiDon

Well, since you don't actually quote from 1 Kings 7:26, I'm not surprised.

Let's look at 1 Kings 7:26, NKJV http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-b...o.x=32&Go.y=13:
Lily blossoms curve outwards at the top, so the brim of the bath curved outwards. As the diameter was "ten cubits from one brim to the other", the diameter at the top would have been wider than the diameter lower down.

GakuseiDon

Get the diameter and multiply by three, of course! (Seriously, I think they did do that at times).

I believe that they used a notched rope. From memory, a cubit was the length of the foreman's arm. So the size of a cubit varied from project to project.

I call it "fundy atheism". It is the mirror-image of the fundy theist who answers "well, God can do it because He can do anything". There is no way to have a serious debate with either group.