Myth About the Bible - Busted!

[Hans Blaster]

Okay, let's deal with the scripture then.
What is the precise value of a cubic, and why is the diameter of the vessel must being10 cubits exactly and the circumference being 30 cubits exactly, a problem for skeptics?

It is a matter of "significant digits". If you say (as the bible does) "10" and "30" with only one apparent digit of significance for each, "1" and "3", respectively, then it is correct within the precision given. If it said "10 cubits and not one finger more or less" (or like you just said "exactly 10 cubits") you are specifying that "10" is not a rounded number, but one with high precision. We usually write this with a decimal point placed after the number to indicate how much precision.

If we wrote "10. cubits" then we claim to know the answer to within 1 cubit. If we write "10.0 cubits" we claim to know within 0.1 cubits.

For "10 cubits exactly" and "30 cubits exactly" it is *definitely* wrong since:

pi = circumference/diameter

this would claim that

pi = 30.0000000000... / 10.000000000... = 3.00000000...

which is definitely wrong.

If we are talking about 30.0 cubit diameter and 10.0 cubit diameter, we have three digits of precision, so

pi = 30.0/10.0 = 3.00

which is again definitely wrong.

Occasionally, when there is ambiguity about the precision of round numbers, it is useful to write them in scientific notation:

3. x 10^1 cubits and 1. x 10^1 cubits indicating the single digit of precision.

However with just one digit of precision as implied by the measurements of the "molten sea"

pi = 3. x 10^1 / 1. x 10^1 = 3.

which is pi to 1 digit of precision. Not particularly useful for any real work, but not wrong. There is nothing in that passage to indicate that the dimensions of the "molten sea" are given with more precision.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I see you identify as Deist.
I do not know much about Deism, because I haven't looked into that before, since I never spoke to a Deist before... at least not knowingly.

What is your response to someone telling you that the value of 30 cubits, and 10 cubits are approximate values?

I have no idea in what respect this is being asked. Are you asking if me being a Deist means that I can would agree that the cubits given are approximate values or not? I'm confused by this question.

Whatever value a cubits is in inches times 30, and times 10, and you divide the greater value by the lesser, the result will always be 3.
That is what I was saying.

In the original unedited OP, that wasn't what you were saying. I thought we were past this part.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

How so?


I thought it was 2 million.
You see. the figure changes, because it is an estimation given on an assumption.
It's not the actual age of the mountain.


No. They are giving you a window based on the fact that they do not know, but assume that the former assumption still allows for more than one million years.


Yes, because you know. You are not assuming, and giving an estimated figure... until you find out your actual age.


Did you understand my post to say that? ?
If I had a penny for every millions of years chopped off of things that were assumed to be older than they were thought, I'd be a rich man.

The moon is 85 million years younger than previously thought

Dating the Moon takes a lot of smart guesswork, and that means we're probably going to be hearing much more about the age of the Moon in the years ahead. Future crewed missions to the Moon will be able to collect more lunar rock samples, and could hopefully plug some of the remaining gaps in our knowledge.

This isn't the only recent study exploring these mysterious unknowns. It was only three years ago that the age of the Moon was pushed back some 140 million years, while more recent research suggests the Moon is older still.

I not sure you understood what was said.
What I am saying is the guess work is not a fixed age, as you are suggesting... like '2 million... No, 1.39 million... No, x million...'


That's just it.
The fact that you said this, demonstrates you did not get the point.
"grew the same amount each year" is the assumption that is being revised.

"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."

Scientists have thought that the Earth’s mountain ranges are formed through this process over many millions of years.

At the same rate is to assume you know the process, and that process is constant. That is not the case.
Perhaps you did not read through, but you clearly missed the point.

You just kind of make it up as you go along, huh?

 

[Yttrium]

That is a surprise to me.
I would have to see that in writing, anywhere else, besides a public forum, in order to believe it.
That is not my experience, for sure.

If you want some anecdotal corroboration, I'm a skeptic, and I see it as an approximation. In fact, I see the arguments about it as a waste of time. I've never encountered a Christian, literalist or otherwise, who insists that pi must equal 3.0 because of that passage in the Bible. People back then didn't have very accurate ways of measuring things, so a 30 to 10 ratio was a fine approximation, even coming from God. As far as I'm concerned, your "bust" is appropriate.

(On the other hand, I consider your "bust" of mountain heights to be nonsensical.)

 

[BCP1928]

That is a surprise to me.
I would have to see that in writing, anywhere else, besides a public forum, in order to believe it.
That is not my experience, for sure.


That is not my experience.
Can you name a handful of these literalists, or even find 5 links on the internet that takes these as more than an approximation?

By and large I agree with Yttrium. What I think you are experiencing from your "skeptics" is an attempt at an argument in the form of reductio ad absurdum. To put it another way, if the books of the Bible are "infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological." how come regarding the stated dimensions of that vessel described in Kings as approximations is OK?

 

[CoreyD]

You just kind of make it up as you go along, huh?

No. Why would you think that? Do you make up stuff as you go along?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No. Why would you think that? Do you make up stuff as you go along?

Not speaking for them, but saying that scientists give the age of Mount Everest and how long it took to form is an 'estimation given on an assumption' is... quite telling.

 

[CoreyD]

If you want some anecdotal corroboration, I'm a skeptic, and I see it as an approximation. In fact, I see the arguments about it as a waste of time. I've never encountered a Christian, literalist or otherwise, who insists that pi must equal 3.0 because of that passage in the Bible.

You're right.
The only ones I heard with this are skeptics of the Bible.

People back then didn't have very accurate ways of measuring things, so a 30 to 10 ratio was a fine approximation, even coming from God. As far as I'm concerned, your "bust" is appropriate.

Thank you. I would agree, but I'll leave it as is, for now.

(On the other hand, I consider your "bust" of mountain heights to be nonsensical.)

Thank you for your honest opinion.
Would you mind explaining why it is nonsensical? I really would like to hear.

 

[CoreyD]

By and large I agree with Yttrium. What I think you are experiencing from your "skeptics" is an attempt at an argument in the form of reductio ad absurdum. To put it another way, if the books of the Bible are "infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological." how come regarding the stated dimensions of that vessel described in Kings as approximations is OK?

Does that not happen happen in science?
If everything must fit one category, there can be no alternatives.
Something can be precise, while something else is not. Something can be figurative, while something else is not.

Just as interpretations in science, are based on consideration of the facts, the same applies in the case of Biblical texts.
Because something is figurative, that does not render all things figurative.
Some things can be bang on accurate, in a literal way,

What the Biblical skeptics do, is use the fact that some things are not literal, to try and argue that everything is figurative... except where they think they can use something figurative to claim it is literal.
Either way, their hope is to argue exactly as you put it there.

The goal is to win either way, because "the Bible is not accurate... period."
The only thing they are willing to give, is history, because they can't argue against archaeological evidence, once it surfaces.
So they leave their critiques buried in the dust, and walk away, and raise another the next day... till that one gets buried. Then they repeat.

As I said, this will not end, until the end.
Christians are used to it.

 

[CoreyD]

Not speaking for them, but saying that scientists give the age of Mount Everest and how long it took to form is an 'estimation given on an assumption' is... quite telling.

Seeing that you read that somewhere in a thread, where it was never said, is... quite telling.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Christians are used to it.

Oh, waaaaah!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Seeing that you read that somewhere in a thread, where it was never said, is... quite telling.

So you didn't say these in post #77?:

You see. the figure changes, because it is an estimation given on an assumption.
It's not the actual age of the mountain.

No. They are giving you a window based on the fact that they do not know, but assume that the former assumption still allows for more than one million years.

 

[CoreyD]

So you didn't say these in post #77?:

That's saying that scientists give the age of Mount Everest?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's saying that scientists give the age of Mount Everest?

No, it's showing that you said that age of the mountains, and I'm quoting directly from you here, "is an estimation given on an assumption". Which I can further back up by adding the quote itself, again:

I thought it was 2 million.
You see. the figure changes, because it is an estimation given on an assumption.
It's not the actual age of the mountain.

As well as linking to said post here.

Saying that scientists do anything on an assumption is very telling on your part.

 

[CoreyD]

No, it's showing that you said that age of the mountains, and I'm quoting directly from you here, "is an estimation given on an assumption". Which I can further back up by adding the quote itself, again:

As well as linking to said post here.

Saying that scientists do anything on an assumption is very telling on your part.

Not much to go on here, but are you saying they don't?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not much to go on here, but are you saying they don't?

No, they don't do things on assumptions. Nothing in science is done on assumptions.

Why do you think that scientists 'estimate on an assumption' the age of Mount Everest? What lead you to conclude such an idea?

 

[CoreyD]

No, they don't do things on assumptions. Nothing in science is done on assumptions.

Understanding Science 101 : Making assumptions.

Why do you think that scientists 'estimate on an assumption' the age of Mount Everest? What lead you to conclude such an idea?

I do not find any quote where I said anything about the age of Mount Everest.
If you do find that quote, please point it out, and I would be able to answer the question, as it would have been validated.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Understanding Science 101 : Making assumptions.

First off, you need to stop replying with links to websites. It makes you look lazy.
Secondly, there's a difference between the assumption of "This test is going to work", which is a reasonable and human assumption to make, and the assumption you claim scientists have made about Mount Everest.

I do not find any quote where I said anything about the age of Mount Everest.
If you do find that quote, please point it out, and I would be able to answer the question, as it would have been validated.

Buddy, I've repeatedly quoted and linked to the post in question twice now. There's also these amazing little arrows in the top of quoted posts that let you go back and see the actual chain of comments. But I'll be nice and humour you.

In post #16, you claim:

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

Tropical Wind responds in post #20 with:

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.

You then respond in post #77 with these two comments:

You see. the figure changes, because it is an estimation given on an assumption.
It's not the actual age of the mountain.

No. They are giving you a window based on the fact that they do not know, but assume that the former assumption still allows for more than one million years.

I've bolded the relevant parts of the comments.

You claimed that the age of Mount Everest is based on assumption. It's clear in black and white in plain English to see. Now please answer my questions: Why do you think that scientists 'estimate on an assumption' the age of Mount Everest? What lead you to conclude such an idea?

 

[Yttrium]

Thank you for your honest opinion.
Would you mind explaining why it is nonsensical? I really would like to hear.

You make an unreasonable leap in logic from the idea that mountains can form faster than we previously expected, to the idea that we can't know how fast they formed, so it could have happened in thousands of years. This doesn't work.

There is enormous energy involved in lifting that much mass. Putting out that much energy within 6,000 years would melt the mountain and cause catastrophic earthquakes every day. Tectonic plates would have to be moving at a much greater pace. We would be able to tell if that kind of thing happened because of the devastating effects to the surface of the Earth. You wouldn't have to worry about the flood killing everybody off, because the crazy geologic (plus resulting atmospheric) effects would do it first.

Now, it's safe to say that there were no mountains as tall as Everest 6,000 years ago. Everest itself was probably around 10-15 meters shorter. That doesn't help your case.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

No. Why would you think that? Do you make up stuff as you go along?

Because the information you’re giving doesn’t gel. As the kids say “the math isn’t mathing.”