How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure their arms were the same length -- their left arms had better be the same length as their right arms, or they'd be too flawed to be in the presence of God.

Leviticus 21:18 covered this, but it would make sense for Deuteronomy to go into more details, considering its origins and patronage...

I think I'll just take Post 1485 for what it's worth.

 

[Opdrey]

Then why did God demand it?

Deuteronomy 25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Fair enough. So I guess we "Keep looking" for it.

(Isn't it thought that Deuteronomy was the "missing book" that was found in the Temple by Hilkiah?)

Noah came before they did.

Noah also came long before the book of Deuteronomy (even if you think Moses wrote it and everyone knew about it up until Hilkiah found it).[/QUOTE]

 

[AV1611VET]

(Isn't it thought that Deuteronomy was the "missing book" that was found in the Temple by Hilkiah?)

Hmmm -- good question.

I've never heard that before.

I'll check into it.

Noah also came long before the book of Deuteronomy (even if you think Moses wrote it and everyone knew about it up until Hilkiah found it).

The reason I'm bringing up Noah is because that's where "cubit" is mentioned for the first time.

Genesis 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

So if a cubit is indeed the length of a man's forearm, then I would give that credit to Noah, not Moses.

 

[ruthiesea]

I believe that if it is in the Bible it is not considered an "opinion" by AV.

But if it’s science it is?

 

[Opdrey]

But if it’s science it is?

Science is, indeed, free to take a hike.

 

[Kylie]

I've always found "the inside diameter" silly. Imagine you had something 45 ft around (~30 cubits). How many folks would it take to hold the rope on the inside to measure it? OTOH, you could get a pretty good measure of the outside with just 2. 3 would be better. But I'd guess you'd need 10 to keep the rope from sagging on the inside.

Humans measuring something the hard way? Nah.

I meant measuring the diameter of the opening.

 

[Astrid]

Might help you quite a bit in this case.



But you did mention something being rounded to the nearest hundredths and that's an example of how significant digits operate (there's a lot more about significant digits than just that buy you were on track)

Does it ever alter your position on thing when you find out you didn't know something?

Instead of trying to exegete the bible into saying something is round all about is actually an ellipse, why not just assume that it was a rounding issue?

Perfectly freaking obvious!

And the only ones who care are those who think the bible cannot
have any error whatsofreakin'ever!

 

[Astrid]

I meant measuring the diameter of the opening.

You're no fun

 

[AV1611VET]

Perfectly freaking obvious!

Only if you tell the dictionary to take a hike.

Here is the passage, along with the definitions again:

1 Kings 7:23 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.

Round:
1. shaped like or approximately like a circle or cylinder
2. shaped like or approximately like a sphere
3. any round shape, as a circle, ring or sphere
4. a circular, ring-shaped, curved, or spherical object

Notice two things:

1. The Bible does not say it was a circle. Instead It says it was "round."
2. Of the four definitions and four depictions (i.e., circle, cylinder, sphere, ring), you stick to only one (circle) religiously.

Why is that? to make the Bible look bad?

You even have to invoke Pi to do it, when the Bible doesn't even mention Pi.

Again, an ellipse has three main characteristics: circumference, long axis, short axis; and Pi plays a minor role.

In short, you're grasping at hay to make the Bible look bad, and it's backfiring on you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The last few pages of this thread are what happens when you don't understand precision and significant digits. Sigh.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I meant measuring the diameter of the opening.

You're right. I was thinking circumference. But the only way three is close is if you extend the diameter and somehow shrink (by measuring the inside circumference) the circumference.

 

[AV1611VET]

The last few pages of this thread are what happens when you don't understand precision and significant digits. Sigh.

The only "significant digits" I'm interested in are 10 and 30.

1 Kings 7:23 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.

To add another "significant digit," such as 3.14, into the interpretation, then claim the passage is wrong, is wrong.

The oval track is a 400-meter track with parallel lanes. For the 100-meters sprint races runners run in straight lanes, for the 200-meter sprint races runners run at the bend of the track for 100 meters and the other 100 meters in a straight line. For 400 meters race, runners run around the track and complete a circle.

SOURCE

Here, the word "circle" is used, but it effectively makes my point.

It is not a true circle, like some think the molten sea was.

 

[Kylie]

You're no fun

My husband says otherwise.

 

[Kylie]

You're right. I was thinking circumference. But the only way three is close is if you extend the diameter and somehow shrink (by measuring the inside circumference) the circumference.

Yeah, I haven't actually done the math. But given that the variance is about a tenth of a cubit, it's quite reasonable to chalk it up to rounding errors (pun intended). If the circumference was 30 cubits, then the diameter would be a bit over 9 and a half. Circle Calculator

 

[Hans Blaster]

As I said...

The only "significant digits" I'm interested in are 10 and 30.

The only significant digits in the numbers "10" and "30" are "1" and "3". The text offers no information about additional numbers of significance. We don't know if it is more precisely 11 or 10, 30, 31, 32, etc.

There is a reason I wrote these numbers earlier as 1.x10^1 and 3.x10^1 only the 1 and 3 are significant. The zeros only indicate the magnitude of the numbers.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I said...



The only significant digits in the numbers "10" and "30" are "1" and "3". The text offers no information about additional numbers of significance. We don't know if it is more precisely 11 or 10, 30, 31, 32, etc.

There is a reason I wrote these numbers earlier as 1.x10^1 and 3.x10^1 only the 1 and 3 are significant. The zeros only indicate the magnitude of the numbers.

Okay.

And what does all this have to do with this phantom number (3.14) that people like to add to the pot sea?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Okay.

And what does all this have to do with this phantom number (3.14) that people like to add to the pot sea?

My point is that the stated numbers of 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around a (roughly) circular object is perfectly reasonable given the precision of the figures. (You should be happy AV. Some people think the "pi=3" is some sort of demonstration about the bible getting things wrong. It is not. )

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think I'll just take Post 1485 for what it's worth.

I think the rest of us will just take this comment as a surrender.

 

[TLK Valentine]

(Isn't it thought that Deuteronomy was the "missing book" that was found in the Temple by Hilkiah?)

"Found" by a temple renovation crew that was being paid directly out of pocket by a revival-minded King Josiah who just so happened to already agree with everything it said and made a grand public spectacle of repentance just in time to stave off an imminent divine retribution... at least, according to 2 Kings 22...


...sheesh, Tony Soprano covered his tracks better than this.

 

[Astrid]

My point is that the stated numbers of 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around a (roughly) circular object is perfectly reasonable given the precision of the figures. (You should be happy AV. Some people think the "pi=3" is some sort of demonstration about the bible getting things wrong. It is not. )

It isnt " wrong". Its just inaccurate

Ive yet to see one of our literalist people accept that the
bible is ever inaccurate.
Their construct of reality is a hard brittle shell.
It seems the tiniest start of a crack will shatter the whole thing.