Vinnie

I don't deem 1 Kings to be the most important book of all time nor one of the top 1,000 books of all time.

No one is excusing an error. Lack of precision isn't an error anyways if you ask me unless the "rounding off" effects the intended meaning somehow. Saying God should have made pi three might be equivalent to saying God should have made round squares. Its nonsense and no viable skepticism can come from it.

At any rate, I don't speak Hebrew. Niv translates it as "circular in shape." If you can show that the text says "perfect circle" then do so. We also don't know where the measurements were taken. If you can prove where the text made the measurements from then do so.

We are dealing with a three dimensional model, not a 2d drawing of a circle on paper with 5th graders. So again, you have not established that the Bible mentions pi--directly or otherwise.

The way to show that this is an error is to show that people of the time commonly accepted pi as exactly three. Then you can infer that the author errs. Without doing this, you have no error.

Vinnie

Sven

This is only the case if indeed a perfect circle was meant - which you still have not established.

I agree with Vinnie, too. (Shall we conduct a poll? )

Madkins007

The reference I used for the definition was http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...88&version=nas, which refers to the word 'naar'.

Qatan , according to http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...96&version=nas, is little, small, young, etc.

Unfortunately, I do not recall which commentary I found the overall story in (I had read it some time ago and looked up the above to see if I remembered it reasonably correctly. it is also mentioned in http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentar...pter=2#2Ki2_23). Nor do I have a resource I know which looks up phrases. If you do, I'd appreciate knowing the link!

My comments on this aspect were also from the earlier commentary, and are reinforced by John Wesley's commentary (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentar...pter=2#2Ki2_23)

As for assuming that the group was a 'mob', even if the kids were only 12, 42 taunting children would still be pretty much a mob. Angry is just as much of a stretch as the assumption that the bear attack was the result of the curse, even though that is not stated in the story either.

I freely admit that commentary writers disagree on this and other passages- often wildly, and I admit to picking and choosing the ones that seem, to ME, to make the most sense based on what research I know how to do.

Steven Carr

2 Kings 5:14 'Then went he down , and dipped himself seven times in Jordan , according to the saying of the man of God : and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child , and he was clean'

Steven Carr

This says 'Cursed them - Nor was this punishment too great for the offence, if it be considered, that their mocking proceeded from a great malignity of mind against God; that they mocked not only a man, and an ancient man, whose very age commanded reverence...';

Was Elisha an ancient man?

I thought he lived for a few more kings, about another 60 years

Sparrow

I also agree with Vinnie that the whole Pi argument is overblown. Inerrantists can explain away this 'error' with no great difficulty. Fifth graders today are likely more knowledgable than bronze age adults anyway. Remember that in the bronze age, there was no concept of zero. Was there an understanding of numbers other than integers?

Still, even something roughly circular that was pretty close to 10 units in diameter would have a circumference larger than 31 units, not 30. Even so I can't imagine someone who could explain away all the other horrible things in the babble and be deconverted because these measurements are contradictory.

I'm not sure when spoked wheels were developed, but even if one were to make spoked wheels, one only needs to make all the spokes the same size to make multiple wheels useful and consistent. I don't understand why someone in the bronze age would need a wheel of a specific circumference anyway. If they did, trial and error would probably suffice.

Goliath

Your "well, it could've been a non-cylindrical pool" is not a refutation until you prove that you are correct.

The pi error stands, and is irrefutable, as pi does not equal 3.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Wrong. Archimedes had a much better approximation for pi than 3.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Irrelevant, as the bible is allegedly the word of a perfect god, and therefore must be perfect.

Sheesh, I learned that when I was 6 or 7 years old...

In this case, it must have been, because otherwise the word "diameter" would make no sense whatsoever.

Again, the pi error is irrefutable.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Yes, there was. IIRC, Archimedes approximated pi at 22/7.

Bzzzzt! Wrong. If it wasn't a circular pool, then there could be no notion of diameter!

Sincerely,

Goliath