Myth About the Bible - Busted!

[CoreyD]

There are some myths about the Bible, that are repeated by religious skeptics.
Here is a place where these can be addressed. What are some of these myths?

#1 is a common objection.
Objection: The Bible give PI as 3.

1 Kings 7:23

He also made the Sea of cast metal. It was circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim, five cubits in height, and thirty cubits in circumference.

Using the units of conversion from this website, we will convert 1 cubic to inches.​

Convert cubit [English] to inches - Conversion of Measurement Units​

​

1​	cubit [English]​
​ 1 ft. 6 inch​	​
18​	inches​

1 cubit [English] to inches = 18 inches​

The Jews used 17.5 inches, but that's okay, we will use 18 inches.​

​

Using this calculator, which has the circumference to diameter formula.​

Diameter and circumference are lengths related to each other — the higher the diameter, the higher the circumference. The circumference to diameter formula connects these variables in a single equation:​

d = c/π​

where:​

• d stands for the diameter;
• c stands for the circumference; and
• π is the pi number.

If, on the other side, you're interested in how to calculate circumference from the diameter, you can solve for c in the above equation:​

c = π × d​

​

We type in the circumference, which is 540 inches (30 cubic - 18 in x 30 in.). Which gives us a diameter of 171.88 inches, which is 10 cubic.​

They say...​

Did you know?​

As you can imagine from the above equations, the number π is a constant equal to the circumference-to-diameter ratio of a circle (π = c/d). If you divide the circumference by the diameter, independently of the size, it'll always be 3.14159265...​

​

Using my calculator to divide the circumference of 540, by 3.14159265, gives me a diameter of 171.8873387356569.​

The Jews were accurate to a T.​

Edit:
Error in calculations above, which I did not double check. My apologies. Please Ignore.

Fact: The Bible's calculation works out accurately to 3.14159265, or 3.1416, even though it is not a science text book. This is because God is its divine author. Proven! Jews used a whole number, rather than concern themselves with decimal points, which did not concern them since they are not Mathematicians.
So, they used a whole number which would represents PI, and how is that a problem?

OP corrected.
Is it okay, or should I change anything else?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

1 cubit [English] to inches = 18 inches​

The Jews used 17.5 inches, but that's okay, we will use 18 inches.​

​

Ah yes, my favorite unit of measurement, the “we will just use” unit. Used widely at the wood cutting station at Home Depot’s across the country. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned in my years of woodworking, a half inch here or there means very little in the grand scheme. Measure twice, cut once with an extra half inch anyway, I always say.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you know of others?

How do you explain the 15 cubits covering the mountaintops during the Flood?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

This is fibbing. The values in the Bible are 10/30. You don't need to convert anything. That should give you pi if those are the dimensions of the circle, but it doesn't. It gives a very round 3. I mean, isn't it more likely that whoever wrote the description was just rounding anyway? I'm not sure there even was a way to notate some fraction of a cubit back then. Also, the use of "English" units instead of "Jewish" units is correcting for the error. That's why there are 2 different unit labels. Otherwise, it would just be cubits.

So, NOT busted.

Why don't you guys just accept that the Bible was written by people and contains errors. It's okay! Lots of famous literature and even scientific writing contains errors. They get corrected with time and we move on. Why die on a mountain that is just demonstrably wrong?

 

[CoreyD]

How do you explain the 15 cubits covering the mountaintops during the Flood?

The waters rose and covered the mountaintops to a depth of fifteen cubits. Genesis 7:20

Thanks for that.

#2 The Global Flood - Mountains
Myth: During the Biblical flood, mountains were as tall as Mount Everest, and could not have been covered by water, up to 270 inches.

Fact:

Mountain Ranges Rise Dramatically Faster Than Expected​

Two new studies by a University of Rochester researcher show that mountain ranges rise to their height in as little as two million years -- several times faster than geologists have always thought.​

​

"We've always assumed that the folding and faulting in the upper crust produced high elevation mountains. Now we have data on ancient mountain elevation that shows something else is responsible for the mountains' uplift."​

Geologists raise the speed limit for how fast continental crust can form

Study suggests parts of the Sierra Nevadas formed in a “geologic instant,” more than twice as fast as previously thought.​

The assumptions on how things happened or progressed in the past, has led to errors in conclusions reached.
There is no evidence that mountains were as tall as Mount Everest, thousands of years ago.
The height of mountains then, are not known, and so, an assumption cannot be used as evidence to claim that the flood waters did not indeed rise and cover the mountaintops to a depth of fifteen cubits, as stated in the Bible.

MYTH

That was a good one. Short and sweet.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Your post says two opposing things… Mountains grew in “as little as 2 million years,” and “there’s no evidence mountains were as tall as Everest thousands of years ago.” One, the other, or neither can be true, but not both.

Maybe it’s that pesky half inch coming back to haunt us again.

 

[CoreyD]

This is fibbing.

Thanks for giving me that heads up.

The values in the Bible are 10/30.

A ratio of one to three. Yes. 10/30=0.3333333333333333.

You don't need to convert anything. That should give you pi if those are the dimensions of the circle, but it doesn't. It gives a very round 3.

Please... do the math for me, because right now you just made a claim, and has not demonstrated it.
I showed the calculations are in line with todays metrics.

Hopefully, you aren't here to make claims, and stand behind them, because I am not arguing against claims.
So... Can we see what you have.

I mean, isn't it more likely that whoever wrote the description was just rounding anyway?

Sounds like the skeptics dream... No.

I'm not sure there even was a way to notate some fraction of a cubit back then.

That's brilliant! I could not have said it better myself.
So why are skeptics quibbling about this?

Also, the use of "English" units instead of "Jewish" units is correcting for the error. That's why there are 2 different unit labels. Otherwise, it would just be cubits.

Correct again. Partly.

So, NOT busted.

Yep.

Claims are like hot air, as you know.

Why don't you guys just accept that the Bible was written by people and contains errors. It's okay! Lots of famous literature and even scientific writing contains errors. They get corrected with time and we move on. Why die on a mountain that is just demonstrably wrong?

This sounds like a desperate plea.
Is it? You don't have to feel bad, you know. You could always give up before more piles of stones fall on your constant critics that get buried in every avalanche of evidence that surfaces in support of the the Bible's accuracy, and reliability.
It hurts having to deal with these facts, doesn't it.

God doesn't bite you know. His loving "arms" are opened wide.
All one has to do is... "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up." James 4:8-10

 

[CoreyD]

Your post says two opposing things… Mountains grew in “as little as 2 million years,” and “there’s no evidence mountains were as tall as Everest thousands of years ago.” One, the other, or neither can be true, but not both.

Maybe it’s that pesky half inch coming back to haunt us again.

We do that a lot, don't we - read part of the package, and forget the whole.
I hope you don't mind taking the whole.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

We do that a lot, don't we - read part of the package, and forget the whole.
I hope you don't mind taking the whole.

Ok. The whole thing makes no sense because the premise from which you draw conflicts with itself.

 

[CoreyD]

Ok. The whole thing makes no sense because the premise from which you draw conflicts with itself.

Try taking out the part that says "in as little as two million years", and read the post again.
If you are still having problems with it, try this...

Scientists have thought that the Earth’s mountain ranges are formed through this process over many millions of years. But MIT geologists have now found that the planet can generate new land far more quickly than previously thought.​

​

In a paper published in the journal Geology, the team shows that parts of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California rose up surprisingly fast, over a period of just 1.39 million years — more than twice as fast as expected for the region. The researchers attribute the rapid formation of land to a massive flare-up of magma.​

​

“The really exciting thing about our findings is, with new high-precision geochronology, we were able to date how quickly that crust-building process happened, and we showed that this large volume of new crust was emplaced at an extremely rapid rate,” says the study’s lead author Benjamin Klein PhD ’19, who carried out the research as a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “It was sort of an instant. It was a little over 1 million years, but in geologic times, it was super fast.”​

If you find you are still having problem, just try to imagine that the estimations (2 million/1.39 million; x million) given with the "years" are invisible, and read the comment just before "MYTH BUSTED".

If you are still having problems then, I can assure you, it is not the post.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Try taking out the part that says "in as little as two million years", and read the post again.
If you are still having problems with it, try this...

Scientists have thought that the Earth’s mountain ranges are formed through this process over many millions of years. But MIT geologists have now found that the planet can generate new land far more quickly than previously thought.​

​

In a paper published in the journal Geology, the team shows that parts of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California rose up surprisingly fast, over a period of just 1.39 million years — more than twice as fast as expected for the region. The researchers attribute the rapid formation of land to a massive flare-up of magma.​

​

“The really exciting thing about our findings is, with new high-precision geochronology, we were able to date how quickly that crust-building process happened, and we showed that this large volume of new crust was emplaced at an extremely rapid rate,” says the study’s lead author Benjamin Klein PhD ’19, who carried out the research as a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “It was sort of an instant. It was a little over 1 million years, but in geologic times, it was super fast.”​

If you find you are still having problem, just try to imagine that the estimations (2 million/1.39 million; x million) given with the "years" are invisible, and read the comment just before "MYTH BUSTED".

If you are still having problems then, I can assure you, it is not the post.

You realize that your solution to any time the theory doesn’t work is to “take that part out.”

17.5? Take that part out, make it 18. 2 million years? Take that part out, make it “really fast” instead. Slap a “myth busted” graphic down, call it a day.

If you have to take any part out to make it conform to what you want it to say, it’s not a fact anymore.

I think we will have flying cars widely available in the next 10 days. Wait. Take the “next 10 days” part out. Poof! Myth busted!!!

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Thanks for giving me that heads up.


A ratio of one to three. Yes. 10/30=0.3333333333333333.

So, not pi

Please... do the math for me, because right now you just made a claim, and has not demonstrated it.
I showed the calculations are in line with todays metrics.

No you didn't. You used different measurements than what the Bible says.

Hopefully, you aren't here to make claims, and stand behind them, because I am not arguing against claims.
So... Can we see what you have.

I showed everything I needed to show.

Sounds like the skeptics dream... No.

Yes. Much more likely than the Bible being the words of any god.

That's brilliant! I could not have said it better myself.
So why are skeptics quibbling about this?

we're not. You made the post.

Correct again. Partly.

No, fully. Your math only "works" because it corrects the error in the text and then you pretend that's what the text says. It isn't.

Yep.
View attachment 355342

Claims are like hot air, as you know.

The bible is nothing but claims.

This sounds like a desperate plea.
Is it? You don't have to feel bad, you know. You could always give up before more piles of stones fall on your constant critics that get buried in every avalanche of evidence that surfaces in support of the the Bible's accuracy, and reliability.
It hurts having to deal with these facts, doesn't it.

No desperation here, pal. I don't feel bad at all... except that people think this stuff is really the words of a god. It's actually just kind of sad. Saying "fact" before you post something that is absolutely not a fact doesn't make it a fact.

God doesn't bite you know.

This we agree on. Non-existent things can't "do" anything like bite, or write ancient books.

His loving "arms" are opened wide.
All one has to do is... "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up." James 4:8-10

No thanks. I did the Christian thing for 25 years. I'm a better, more fulfilled person now.

 

[BCP1928]

There are some myths about the Bible, that are repeated by religious skeptics.
Here is a place where these can be addressed. What are some of these myths?

#1 PI
Myth: The Bible give PI as 3.

1 Kings 7:23

Using the units of conversion from this website, we will convert 1 cubic to inches.​

Convert cubit [English] to inches - Conversion of Measurement Units​

​

1​	cubit [English]​
​ 1 ft. 6 inch​	​
18​	inches​

1 cubit [English] to inches = 18 inches​

The Jews used 17.5 inches, but that's okay, we will use 18 inches.​

​

Using this calculator, which has the circumference to diameter formula.​

Diameter and circumference are lengths related to each other — the higher the diameter, the higher the circumference. The circumference to diameter formula connects these variables in a single equation:​

d = c/π​

where:​

• d stands for the diameter;
• c stands for the circumference; and
• π is the pi number.

If, on the other side, you're interested in how to calculate circumference from the diameter, you can solve for c in the above equation:​

c = π × d​

​

We type in the circumference, which is 540 inches (30 cubic - 18 in x 30 in.). Which gives us a diameter of 171.88 inches, which is 10 cubic.​

They say...​

Did you know?​

As you can imagine from the above equations, the number π is a constant equal to the circumference-to-diameter ratio of a circle (π = c/d). If you divide the circumference by the diameter, independently of the size, it'll always be 3.14159265...​

​

Using my calculator to divide the circumference of 540, by 3.14159265, gives me a diameter of 171.8873387356569.​

The Jews were accurate to a T.​

Fact: The Bible's calculation works out accurately to 3.14159265, or 3.1416, even though it is not a science text book. This is because God is its divine author. Proven!
MYTH

Do you know of others?
Let me see if I can think of anymore...

Not worth the effort. All you've got is a literary description of a big tank whose precise dimensions are unknown. The skepticism you experience is merely a reaction to the fatuous notion that it is supposed to teach us what the value of pi is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you have to change the unit of measurement from the value given to something else entirely to make it fit, then all you've done is shown that you don't care for the source material.

I hope you don't mind me saying that I'll never ask you to work on a building project.

 

[durangodawood]

There are some myths about the Bible, that are repeated by religious skeptics.
Here is a place where these can be addressed. What are some of these myths?

#1 PI
Myth: The Bible give PI as 3.

1 Kings 7:23

Using the units of conversion from this website, we will convert 1 cubic to inches.​

Convert cubit [English] to inches - Conversion of Measurement Units​

​

1​	cubit [English]​
​ 1 ft. 6 inch​	​
18​	inches​

1 cubit [English] to inches = 18 inches​

The Jews used 17.5 inches, but that's okay, we will use 18 inches.​

​

Using this calculator, which has the circumference to diameter formula.​

Diameter and circumference are lengths related to each other — the higher the diameter, the higher the circumference. The circumference to diameter formula connects these variables in a single equation:​

d = c/π​

where:​

• d stands for the diameter;
• c stands for the circumference; and
• π is the pi number.

If, on the other side, you're interested in how to calculate circumference from the diameter, you can solve for c in the above equation:​

c = π × d​

​

We type in the circumference, which is 540 inches (30 cubic - 18 in x 30 in.). Which gives us a diameter of 171.88 inches, which is 10 cubic.​

They say...​

Did you know?​

As you can imagine from the above equations, the number π is a constant equal to the circumference-to-diameter ratio of a circle (π = c/d). If you divide the circumference by the diameter, independently of the size, it'll always be 3.14159265...​

​

Using my calculator to divide the circumference of 540, by 3.14159265, gives me a diameter of 171.8873387356569.​

The Jews were accurate to a T.​

Fact: The Bible's calculation works out accurately to 3.14159265, or 3.1416, even though it is not a science text book. This is because God is its divine author. Proven!
MYTH

Do you know of others?
Let me see if I can think of anymore...

I cant even believe what Im reading.

How could you make such a transparent blunder?

 

[CoreyD]

You realize that your solution to any time the theory doesn’t work is to “take that part out.”

17.5? Take that part out, make it 18. 2 million years? Take that part out, make it “really fast” instead. Slap a “myth busted” graphic down, call it a day.

If you have to take any part out to make it conform to what you want it to say, it’s not a fact anymore.

I think we will have flying cars widely available in the next 10 days. Wait. Take the “next 10 days” part out. Poof! Myth busted!!!

Any taking out is for your benefit.

I'll try one more time, although I am skeptical that this will help.
The estimated 1.39 million years for the formation of the mountain is not to say mountains take that amount of time to form.
The fact is, while scientists believed that mountains formed through a process that took over many millions of years, they have now found that is not the case, and they can form much more quickly.
That window of time does not need to be even one million years.

However, that piece of information has nothing to do with the fact that there is no evidence that mountains were as tall as Mount Everest, thousands of years ago.
The height of mountains then, are not known, and so, an assumption cannot be used as evidence to claim that the flood waters did not indeed rise and cover the mountaintops to a depth of fifteen cubits, as stated in the Bible.

The time it takes for a mountain to reach its peak, from the time it begins to form, does not affect the fact that mountains during the time of the flood, were not the height of Mount Everest.
To help you out further...
If a mountain formed say one million years ago, does that tell you the height of the mountain at the time? No, it doesn't.
However, even if you deducted 4,000 years off the mountain building, you still don't know the height.
What you do know, is the mountain building may not have stopped, and within 6,000 years, could have grown rapidly to newer heights... perhaps twice as fast as than previously thought.

Which means, 6,000 years ago, the tallest mountains were 6,000 years younger, and lower than their are today.
If they grew as fast as scientist say they can, then in a "geologic instant", what was as low as this ____ could have grown to this /\.

I don't know how else I can simplify this.
The problem you may be having is with what you choose to focus on, which has nothing to to with the question raised, and the answer given.

 

[CoreyD]

No you didn't. You used different measurements than what the Bible says.

I'm open. Give me the correct measurement.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm open. Give me the correct measurement.

30 cubits and 10 cubits. It's right in the text.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

1 cubit [English] to inches = 18 inchesThe Jews used 17.5 inches, but that's okay, we will use 18 inches.

Why couldn't you have used the original measurement? Why did you feel the need to change it when you know what the actual units were already?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Any taking out is for your benefit.

I'll try one more time, although I am skeptical that this will help.
The estimated 1.39 million years for the formation of the mountain is not to say mountains take that amount of time to form.
The fact is, while scientists believed that mountains formed through a process that took over many millions of years, they have now found that is not the case, and they can form much more quickly.
That window of time does not need to be even one million years.

However, that piece of information has nothing to do with the fact that there is no evidence that mountains were as tall as Mount Everest, thousands of years ago.
The height of mountains then, are not known, and so, an assumption cannot be used as evidence to claim that the flood waters did not indeed rise and cover the mountaintops to a depth of fifteen cubits, as stated in the Bible.

The time it takes for a mountain to reach its peak, from the time it begins to form, does not affect the fact that mountains during the time of the flood, were not the height of Mount Everest.
To help you out further...
If a mountain formed say one million years ago, does that tell you the height of the mountain at the time? No, it doesn't.
However, even if you deducted 4,000 years off the mountain building, you still don't know the height.
What you do know, is the mountain building may not have stopped, and within 6,000 years, could have grown rapidly to newer heights... perhaps twice as fast as than previously thought.

Which means, 6,000 years ago, the tallest mountains were 6,000 years younger, and lower than their are today.
If they grew as fast as scientist say they can, then in a "geologic instant", what was as low as this ____ could have grown to this /\.

I don't know how else I can simplify this.
The problem you may be having is with what you choose to focus on, which has nothing to to with the question raised, and the answer given.

The problem is you keep making conflicting statements.

“The estimated 1.39 million years for the formation of the mountain is not to say mountains take that amount of time to form.”

If they estimate it took 1.39 million years for a mountain to form, they are, in fact, saying it took that amount of time for it to form. If I say I’m 40 years old, that means I’m 40 years old, not that I’m actually 20 years old.

And a “geologic instant” is not a unit of measurement. It’s an abstract. In a world where fossils are 3.5 to 4 billion years old, where it takes millions upon millions of years to form fossil fuels, to say a mountain only takes a million years to form would a comparatively speedy process. But to go from “mountains grow rapidly over 1.39 million years” to “that means mountains grow in a geologic instant which means they change dramatically over 6,000 years, which makes my theory right” is magical thinking.

6,000 years of 1,390,000 is roughly .43% time elapsed, which is nothing. Or, doing some assumptive math, with Everest being 29,032 feet high, pretending it started perfectly flat and grew the same amount each year, that means it grows .25 inches a year, which means that 6,000 years ago it was 28,907 feet. A difference of 125 feet. So it would be the same height as it is now, minus the height of a lighthouse, plus 20 feet. Not appreciably different at all. Not even as high as the Tower of Terror in Disney, by a lot.