it seems like creationists arn't looking 4 the truth

[nvxplorer]

I say it's 1971 miles from Boston to Denver, Kermit; am I right or wrong?

Then I can assume God was "rounding off" when describing creation.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That's because scientists are trying to find a way for apes to breed humans so they can contradict reality rather than support the fact that no animal breeds human beings but humans.

Actually we scientists are desperately trying to breed apes and humans because monkey-sex is waaaay hot. At least when calculated using a natural log.

 

[crimsondeath]

lol carcio wasn't ape's breeding humans discussed on some other topic u made?

 

[AV1611VET]

Provide longitude / latitude with second level accuracy of both your starting and ending locations and I can answer your question.

And if I didn't go into that much detail, would saying Denver is 1971 miles from Boston be acceptable?

 

[AV1611VET]

Details do not matter in greater truths.

Could rounded-off information of something be given without being considered erroneous?

The word of God is the greatest Truth so if the details of the Bible are wrong in some places the Truth still remains.

Not hardly:

• [bible]John 17:17[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Then I can assume God was "rounding off" when describing creation.

You may assume the writer of First Kings was rounding off when describing the molten sea.

 

[crimsondeath]

ok i have 10 trillion dollars.

I say my word is truth.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And if I didn't go into that much detail, would saying Denver is 1971 miles from Boston be acceptable?

AV,
Actually I'm one of the people who thinks the pi=3 argument in the bible is one of the least compelling issues to discuss, but since you brought up the 1971 miles to Denver I thought I'd throw in a bit about a concept in science called "significant figures"

In the case of saying the distance is 1971mi you are declaring that you have a level of significance down to 1 mile. That's a relative error of only about 0.05%, which is pretty specific.

If, however, you were to have said 1970 miles it would have allowed for almost 10X more relative error in the measurement since 0 is a non-significant digit in that location of the number.

This is why I find the biblical pi=3 argument useless because within lower significance 3 is an estimate, and probably about as good as it needed to be at the time.

Of course as we saw earlier, the actual circumfrence would be 31 cubits because the relative small amount above 3 in pi (3.14...) balloons when the diameter gets bigger. But even then to "1 significant figure" 30 takes into account the possibility of 31.

-t.

 

[nvxplorer]

You may assume the writer of First Kings was rounding off when describing the molten sea.

Perhaps you misunderstood. Let me repeat.

Then I can assume God was "rounding off" when describing creation.

BTW, according to you and others, the writer of First Kings was God.

 

[AV1611VET]

ok i have 10 trillion dollars.

I say my word is truth.

Would it be just as true if you actually had $10,000,000,000,000.85?

Or if you had $9,999,999,999,999.15?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then I can assume God was "rounding off" when describing creation.

Well if you can't tell the difference between literal and figurative, and feel that you have to assume something, or you won't be able to sleep tonight --- be my guest.

Go ahead and assume God rounded each day off to the nearest 24-hour period.

BTW, according to you and others, the writer of First Kings was God.

Right you are! In fact, the words were written in Heaven before they were written on earth!

 

[kermit]

Could rounded-off information of something be given without being considered erroneous?



Not hardly:

• [bible]John 17:17[/bible]

So you don't agree that Truth is greater than detail.

 

[kermit]

Would it be just as true if you actually had $10,000,000,000,000.85?

Or if you had $9,999,999,999,999.15?

Yes, it would be.

Rather than asking all kinds of questions why do you just come out and say what you mean?

 

[kermit]

Well if you can't tell the difference between literal and figurative, and feel that you have to assume something, or you won't be able to sleep tonight --- be my guest.

Go ahead and assume God rounded each day off to the nearest 24-hour period.



Right you are! In fact, the words were written in Heaven before they were written on earth!

IMHO, the creation story is undoubtedly figurative.

Consuming the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge (taking in knowlege) leading to Man's fall from grace is clearly an methaphore about knowledge vs faith.

Creationists constantly say that the pursuit of science is leading us from God. There is a story that describes exactly what they claim, but they assume the story to be factual. They've got the theological argument if they could only accept the story as allegory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rather than asking all kinds of questions why do you just come out and say what you mean?

It's okay to round figures off and still be accurate. Therefore 1 Kings 7:23 and its 2 Chronicles 4:2 counterpart are not in error.

• [bible]1 Kings 7:23[/bible]
• [bible]2 Chronicles 4:2[/bible]

 

[kermit]

It's okay to round figures off and still be accurate. Therefore 1 Kings 7:23 and its 2 Chronicles 4:2 counterpart are not in error.

• [bible]1 Kings 7:23[/bible]
• [bible]2 Chronicles 4:2[/bible]

That's fine, but it makes your position seem very inconsistant.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's fine, but it makes your position seem very inconsistant.

Kermit, I wasn't born yesterday. I can see that dealing with a person like myself can get very frustrating at times.

One time I'm saying:

• Genesis 1 is literal --- the Bible should be interpreted literally.

Next time I'm saying:

• 1 Kings 7:23 is rounded-off --- you should interpret it thusly.

One minute, I'm saying:

• Be careful in obtaining your doctrine from the books of poetry.

Next minute, I'm saying:

• Ecclesiastes 3:11 is the Scientist's Caveat.

But you have got to understand, that knowing the difference is what constitutes maturity, and we are not called to remain "babes in Christ" --- we are to desire the "sincere milk of the word".

I'm not trying to be difficult --- just accurate.

 

[kermit]

Kermit, I wasn't born yesterday. I can see that dealing with a person like myself can get very frustrating at times.

One time I'm saying:

• Genesis 1 is literal --- the Bible should be interpreted literally.

Next time I'm saying:

• 1 Kings 7:23 is rounded-off --- you should interpret it thusly.

One minute, I'm saying:

• Be careful in obtaining your doctrine from the books of poetry.

Next minute, I'm saying:

• Ecclesiastes 3:11 is the Scientist's Caveat.

But you have got to understand, that knowing the difference is what constitutes maturity, and we are not called to remain "babes in Christ" --- we are to desire the "sincere milk of the word".

I'm not trying to be difficult --- just accurate.

IMHO, it takes maturity to realise that whether or not the Bible is literal at any point it doesn't detract from the Truth it contains. It's an interesting intellectual pursuit to find out what is historically accurate and what is not, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.

If you are constantly worrying about what section is literal and which is not then you're going to miss the forest for the trees. Read the Bible for the message it delivers and don't worry about whether or not any of the things you're reading every actually happened.

 

[anatolian]

We dont know how God created the universe and living things,Quran says that Allah created every living creature from water but its not clear how was happened this so no neeed to reject any scientific theory, let the science strugle on its own way

 

[crimsondeath]

if god is so divine, why would he need to round off?