Pi

[corvus_corax]

Were you claiming a high mensa score?

Actually, no, AV never did

 

[Alunyel]

He said he only missed out by 2 points, yet I wasn't aware they told you your score, just whether or not you were in the top 2 percentile range.

The Mensa IQ test is highly flawed, though, you could be a complete genius in one subject, but if they don't ask any questions on that subject, then it makes no difference, you'll still appear to have a lower IQ.

 

[corvus_corax]

He said he only missed out by 2 points, yet I wasn't aware they told you your score, just whether or not you were in the top 2 percentile range.

Yeah well maybe he missed it by2 %
Whatever.

The Mensa IQ test is highly flawed, though, you could be a complete genius in one subject, but if they don't ask any questions on that subject, then it makes no difference, you'll still appear to have a lower IQ.

Yeah, sounds like every IQ test Ive taken.
Ive been "rated" from 98 to 155.


Anyway, back to the point?
I was only drawing attention to the fact that Hespera was "remembering incorrectly" something that AV had posted previously, that's all.
Nothing more.

 

[Hespera]

av sez...I'll say this much --- I'm glad to hear that's your best reasoning for saying Pi is wrong.

At least you've got one.

hespera sez....

Why yes, i do have reasoning. Do you? Other than goddidit? The numbers you keep giving dont work, as has been pointed out, even if accurate measurements were possible.

Everyone including you knows that it is impossible to make measurements that are absolutely accurate, and that size of the thing being measured would vary. Infinite number of decimal places? Nope. At some point, the numbers are going to be approximate, which is to say, wrong.
Impossible to get it right.

If you find yourself unable to concede that its impossible, well, that only says something about you, not about the accuracy of the numbers.

 

[Tinker Grey]

This is why I say that the text would be "perfect" if it simply didn't mention one of the dimensions. As such, there would be no problem with ratio at all. Pi wouldn't have been implied to be 3 and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

To me, this speaks of the failure of the perfection of the text. Anyone of us could have written that text so that there would have been no doubts as to what was meant. This author didn't and most likely couldn't. It didn't occur to that author that anyone would have a problem with it. Perhaps he didn't know Pi wasn't three. Perhaps he didn't know that he should give more info so there would be no confusion. In any case, it is certainly not perfect, nor does it appear inspired.

While I was still a Christian, I commented to a friend that if the Bible was perfect it was perfectly flawed. I went on to say that it would appear designed (if it is designed) to engender doubt. As such, it appears designed to require faith ... perhaps the only thing that God requires from us that he does not have in himself.

Now, Occam's unruly beard has been shaved.

 

[ReverendDG]

hey AV, a question: do you understand what the point of this argument is?
i'm honestly asking this, because you don't seem like you really do understand it.

 

[Vermithrax]

I don't see what the problem is with Pi in 1 Kings 7.Take a look at this artist's representation:

​

Notice five things that this object could have, if it was built to specs:

1. 7.5 feet heigth [5 cubits] (not counting the oxen at the base)
2. the brim at the top 1.7124 feet [1.1416 cubits] wide
3. an outer circumference of 45 feet [30 cubits]
4. an inner circumference of 15 feet [10 cubits]
5. a wall 4-6 inches [handbreath] thick

Thus satisfying all the dimensions necessary.

Why are you using this argument? It's hackneyed and certainly not one I would use when discussing inerrancy. Why don't you go back to the discussion you abandoned about the Mariana Trench?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is why I say that the text would be "perfect" if it simply didn't mention one of the dimensions. As such, there would be no problem with ratio at all. Pi wouldn't have been implied to be 3 and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I totally disagree --- the passage is correct as it stands.

I said it before, and I'll say it again --- the diameter was 10 cubits --- as in 10.0000000000...

The circumference that is mentioned, 30 cubits, is also correct --- as in 30.0000000000...

Pi, which isn't even mention, is still 3.14159265358979323846...

What is confusing you guys is not Pi --- it's the thickness of the wall.

 

[[serious]]

I totally disagree --- the passage is correct as it stands.

I said it before, and I'll say it again --- the diameter was 10 cubits --- as in 10.0000000000...

The circumference that is mentioned, 30 cubits, is also correct --- as in 30.0000000000...

Pi, which isn't even mention, is still 3.14159265358979323846...

What is confusing you guys is not Pi --- it's the thickness of the wall.

Measurements are never assumed to be infinitely precise. In fact, it is fundamentally impossible for them to be infinitely precise as that there are many factors that would change them, temperature, humidity, pressure, Brownian motion if it comes down to it. You are simply introducing error into what would otherwise be a completely correct passage.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Why is this even an issue? Has everyone (especially the OP) completely missed the point of First Kings?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I totally disagree --- the passage is correct as it stands.

I said it before, and I'll say it again --- the diameter was 10 cubits --- as in 10.0000000000...

The circumference that is mentioned, 30 cubits, is also correct --- as in 30.0000000000...

Pi, which isn't even mention, is still 3.14159265358979323846...

What is confusing you guys is not Pi --- it's the thickness of the wall.

You are missing the point. There would simply need be no discussion if the author was smarter. Either he could have left out a detail which would have forestalled any discussion about this passage or he could have given a whole bunch more information that would also have forestalled this discussion.

As such, the author lacks the prescience of a modern canny human author let alone an omniscient author.

 

[Hespera]

Lady kate sez....Why is this even an issue? Has everyone (especially the OP) completely missed the point of First Kings?QUOTE//////////////////

Hespea sez;

does not matter what the point of Kings may have been.

the topic here is accuracy, inerrency, literal meaning as applied to that passage.

It is impossible for the measurements to be correct, as stated.

Among the reasons are the impossibility of making the measurements, as has been stated to near nauseum now.

So... see... the bible in this case is only approximate.

so in what other ways is it only approximate?

Can it be perfect and inerrant if has has ANY errors?

How approximate can you get and still be perfect and True?

Its not important. I dont believe 90% of whats in that book anyway.

AV brought the subject up, and the only reason for me to pursue it is to watch the defenders of biblical inerrency flop about like young mackerels trying to get out of admitting that the bible is not accurate.

 

[[serious]]

Lady kate sez....Why is this even an issue? Has everyone (especially the OP) completely missed the point of First Kings?QUOTE//////////////////

Hespea sez;

does not matter what the point of Kings may have been.

the topic here is accuracy, inerrency, literal meaning as applied to that passage.

It is impossible for the measurements to be correct, as stated.

Among the reasons are the impossibility of making the measurements, as has been stated to near nauseum now.

So... see... the bible in this case is only approximate.

so in what other ways is it only approximate?

Can it be perfect and inerrant if has has ANY errors?

How approximate can you get and still be perfect and True?

Its not important. I dont believe 90% of whats in that book anyway.

AV brought the subject up, and the only reason for me to pursue it is to watch the defenders of biblical inerrency flop about like young mackerels trying to get out of admitting that the bible is not accurate.

As I've pointed out, we have no indication they are being accurate to more than 1 significant figure. As such, 10 and 30 are appropriate and accurate as stated. Furthermore, it is likely fully accurate to the best of their measurements. Furtherfurthermore, it's irrelevant to the point of the verse

 

[AV1611VET]

Measurements are never assumed to be infinitely precise. In fact, it is fundamentally impossible for them to be infinitely precise as that there are many factors that would change them, temperature, humidity, pressure, Brownian motion if it comes down to it. You are simply introducing error into what would otherwise be a completely correct passage.

Yes, I agree; but I used the decimal points for emphasis.

Fact of the matter is, the Bible says "ten" and "thirty", and that's good enough.

Pi doesn't even enter into the picture, having nothing to do with the verses at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is this even an issue?

It's not.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are missing the point. There would simply need be no discussion if the author was smarter. Either he could have left out a detail which would have forestalled any discussion about this passage or he could have given a whole bunch more information that would also have forestalled this discussion.

Again --- I disagree.

Every word in that verse is as it should be.

There is no error whatsoever.

The diameter of one perimeter is ten cubits, while the circumference of the other perimeter is thirty cubits.

 

[Hespera]

AV sez...Yes, I agree; but I used the decimal points for emphasis.

Fact of the matter is, the Bible says "ten" and "thirty", and that's good enough.

Pi doesn't even enter into the picture, having nothing to do with the verses at all QUOTE/////////////

hespera sez....sure its good enough, unless you try to take it as being literally and exactly true.

I wonder what is so hard about just accepting the fact that the measurements cant possibly be accurate?

The bible makes a clear statement of "fact" that is clearly wrong.

If that isnt an issue to you, fine, it isnt to me; I dont expect it to be correct.

For those who do expect the bible to be correct, it seems like it would be a profound issue to find it is not. But hey, maybe not.

 

[Hespera]

AV sez....The diameter of one perimeter is ten cubits, while the circumference of the other perimeter is thirty cubits.QUOTE////////////////

hespera sez...

So the thing is 30 cubits around, correct to an infinite number of decimal places?

And the string used to measure it, is also 30 cubits, to infinite decimal places?

And it is prefectly round, so that at whatever point diameter is measured, it is always 10 cubits, to infinte decimal places?

And there is absolutely no thermal expansion or contraciton to change those humbers.

just making sure if this is your claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the thing is 30 cubits around, correct to an infinite number of decimal places?

Was Noah's Ark 300 cubits long?

The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits,

 

[ReverendDG]

Again --- I disagree.

Every word in that verse is as it should be.

There is no error whatsoever.

The diameter of one perimeter is ten cubits, while the circumference of the other perimeter is thirty cubits.

see i don't think you even get this argument AV.
the argument isn't over the fact that Pi=3 is what the bible says, but what the text means in light of saying pi=3
namely that the bible is not inerrant as literalists say it is, if the bible says pi is not 3.14 then the bible is in error, because it says 3.
isn't that what what inerrant means? without error? well the bible saying its not 3.14 is wrong.

i have a feeling you will say something like atheists are more literalist than christians, but the word inerrant implies the text being inerrant and being close is not inerrant.