What are the odds?

Tim Robbins · 26-08-2008 04:06PM

PDN wrote: »

Logic and reason, you should try it some time.

You're beginning to sound like Dawkins, PDN.

PDN · 26-08-2008 04:08PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I guess that depends on how one defines "viable"

Your explanation reminded me of the debate a while back about how 3 was a perfectly acceptable approximation of Pi.

It isn't, but then since "perfectly acceptable" is not something that can be properly defined or tested this remains a subjective assessment and as such people who are looking for an excuse for the inaccuracy of the geometry in the Bible can always fall back on this.

That is a blatant untruth.

The Bible does not pretend to give a value of pi at all - something I have copnsistently stated.

Zombrex · 26-08-2008 04:49PM

PDN wrote: »

That is a blatant untruth.

The Bible does not pretend to give a value of pi at all - something I have copnsistently stated.

It is "blatantly untruth" to represent my post as claiming that the Bible gives a value for Pi :rolleyes: It doesn't, "Pi" isn't even mentioned in the Bible as far as I know.

Considering you were involved in the earlier mentioned debate you should really know better PDN

What the Bible describes is a structure that could not exist because of Pi. It gets Pi wrong (Pi is after all simple a ratio), not in stating it but in describing the dimensions of a structure that should match Pi to actually exist.

It would be like the Bible describing a triangle building built with 3 corners each at an angle of 50 degrees. The Bible doesn't have to explicitly state that an equilateral triangle has 3 corners of 50 degrees for this structure to be wrong and impossible.

The excuse is that it doesn't matter, it was just an acceptable approximation of the dimensions. Therefore it is not an error.

My original point is that such an assessment is entirely subjective. To me and most engineers and mathematicians such an approximation is pointless to the point of nonsense. But it allows someone who refuses to entertain the idea of error in the Bible the wiggle room to reconcile this with their beliefs.

And at the end of the day you can do this with pretty much anything. A person can find a viable alternative to any apparent contradiction or error if they are prepared to search hard enough.

PDN · 26-08-2008 05:09PM

Wicknight wrote: »

To me and most engineers and mathematicians such an approximation is pointless to the point of nonsense.

Now you're just being silly.

We all use language in a descriptive way without trying to be 100% precise about numbers and measurements.

So, for example, we might say that 6,000,000 Jews died in the Holocaust. If it was actually calculated that only 5.9 million Jews died then that would hardly be justification for causing the 6 million an 'error' or a 'contradiction'.

Similarly, I know a guy who is 6 feet 8 inches tall. Now, no doubt he is actually a fraction of an inch shorter or taller - but that does not mean I am in error.

An American visitor asked me how far it is to drive from Dublin to Belfast. I told him it was 100 miles. However, I now see that the Irish Tourist Board calculates the distance as 102 miles. Does this mean that my figure of 100 miles was "pointless to the point of nonsense"? Is the Tourist Board figure pointless nonsense as well, since I'm sure it is not exactly 102 miles but rather a few yards more or less?

Such approximation of distances may be pointless in the context of a blueprint for an engineer - but in the context of a description of the Jewish Temple they are perfectly reasonable - irrespective of whether you are a farmer or a mathematician. The only kind of person who would find such approximation to be "pointless to the point of nonsense" in such a context would be the same kind of person who falsely states that the Bible gives a value for pi.

Zombrex · 26-08-2008 05:32PM

PDN wrote: »

We all use language in a descriptive way without trying to be 100% precise about numbers and measurements.

Yes we do because we are flawed creatures when dealing with numbers particularly in speak. But then most of what we say isn't the infallible word of God.

It is technically as easy to write 5.9 million Jews as it is to write 6 million.

In speech you don't because you are a human and as such have trouble with details and consider long explanations to be socially awkward. Which is why people say it is quarter to 6 rather than 17 minutes to 6. Both are just as easy to say, but one may land you with a punch in the face for being a swot because some people have trouble with time.

Needless to say that doesn't work as an explanation for this case.

Not only is such an approximation unnecessary but it also cause the structure, a metal cast Sea if I remember correctly, to be impossible.

Saying 6 million Jews or 5.9 million Jews is not important to the over all point that there was a Holocaust. But having said that you would still write 5.9 million if you knew that was the number and you were writing it down for a book describing the Holocaust.

Why go to the detail of explaining the lengths of the measurements to only end up getting them wrong and describing a round metal cast that can't exist?

PDN wrote: »

Such approximation of distances may be pointless in the context of a blueprint for an engineer - but in the context of a description of the Jewish Temple they are perfectly reasonable

Define "perfectly reasonable"

Using your example of the Holocaust, why if you knew 5.9 million Jews died would you write 6 million in a chapter of a book about how many Jews died. Is it not just as easy to write that 5.9 million died, and more accurately describes the events?

Likewise why when writing a passage going into rather a lot of detail about the dimensions of a temple, incorrectly approximate measurements of a structure when you already know the correct lengths?

Why purpose does that serve? Why would you approximate in a written text if you didn't need to?

Again this is the type of thing I'm talking about. One can say that any crazy excuse explaining away a mistake is "perfectly reasonable" if one is setting out with the idea of explaining away an excuse. What is perfectly reasonable is entirely subjective, and if the person has an agenda to find an explanation, not matter what it is, the explanation they find will always be perfectly reasonable.

PDN · 26-08-2008 05:45PM

Wicknight wrote: »

In speech you don't because you are a human and as such have trouble with details and consider long explanations to be socially awkward. Which is why people say it is quarter to 6 rather than 17 minutes to 6. Both are just as easy to say, but one may land you with a punch in the face for being a swot because some people have trouble with time.

No, it's got nothing to do with social awkwardness and everything to do with effective communication. We don't like pedantic people who go into unnecessary detail because that actually gets in the way of the main points that we want to hear.

Likewise why when writing a passage going into rather a lot of detail about the dimensions of a temple, incorrectly approximate measurements of a structure when you already know the correct lengths?

Why purpose does that serve? Why would you approximate in a written text if you didn't need to?

Because some measure of approximation is necessary for effective communication. For example, if you tried to give the value of pi in decimal points in a book, then the book would need to be longer than the Bible and would still be an approximation. Meanwhile any sensible reader would miss the main point you were trying to make because they would rightly conclude you were an idiot and give up reading after a couple of pages.

We all round things up or down to the nearest inch, second, kilometre, day, year etc. depending on the context. The writers of the biblical books did the same. No reasonable person would have a problem with that. The fact that you and other atheists want to try and make an issue of it just causes people to dismiss you as cranks and to stop listening to anything else you might have to say.

Zombrex · 26-08-2008 06:08PM

PDN wrote: »

No, it's got nothing to do with social awkwardness and everything to do with effective communication. We don't like pedantic people who go into unnecessary detail because that actually gets in the way of the main points that we want to hear.

How is writing "6 million" more effective communication than writing "5.9 million"?

Please explain that one to me.

How is a chapter in the Bible describing in length the dimensions of a temple going to have more "effective communication" by getting the measurements of a metal disk wrong?

PDN wrote: »

We all round things up or down to the nearest inch, second, kilometre, day, year etc. depending on the context. The writers of the biblical books did the same.

What part of the structure will not work if it is rounded to that level do you not understand PDN?

Everyone approximates Pi. But they approximate pi to a level that it can still be used. Approximating it beyond recognition is pointless and in error.

No one would ever approximate Pi to 3. Why? Because Pi to 3 will not form a circle and as such is useless.

You might as well say rounding to the nearest 10 million is an acceptable way to describe the holocaust. It isn't because it is an approximation to level of absurdity, as is rounding Pi to 3, something that makes Pi meaningless in the first place.

I'm assuming that all this stems from you really not understanding what Pi actually is.

But I assure you PDN that Pi approximated to the level of 3 is approximated to such a degree that it is meaningless.

The idea that this would increase the effectiveness of the communication is absurd. It would confuse anyone who knows anything about geometry, how is that more effective communication?

PDN wrote: »

The fact that you and other atheists want to try and make an issue of it just causes people to dismiss you as cranks and to stop listening to anything else you might have to say.

The fact that you will go to such extremes to try and gloss over something that is clearly simply a mistake (a maths mistake a book written 4,000 years ago by people with very limited knowledge of maths, what a shocker! :eek:) simple makes you look like a die hard fundamentalist.

Which is why your posts claiming to find "perfectly reasonable" explanations for other contradictions and mistakes in the Bible just come off hollow.

PDN · 26-08-2008 06:32PM

Wicknight wrote: »

How is writing "6 million" more effective communication than writing "5.9 million"?

Please explain that one to me.

I don't think it is much point explaining anything to you because you are incapable of listening to anything that does not conform to your prejudices.

As a professional communicator, let me assure you that a reference to "the six million who died in the holocaust" is more effective than either 5.9 or 6.1 million. People think in round figures.

How is a chapter in the Bible describing in length the dimensions of a temple going to have more "effective communication" by getting the measurements of a metal disk wrong?

It doesn't get measurements wrong. It rounds them up and down. That particular chapter gives a lot of measurements in cubits. If every measurement was given in fractions then the entire chapter would become extremely unwieldy for the average reader.

What part of the structure will not work if it is rounded to that level do you not understand PDN?

An existing material structure will work whether my written description of it is rounded to the nearest cubit or precisely stated to the most precise fraction. What part of that do you not understand?

Everyone approximates Pi. But they approximate pi to a level that it can still be used. Approximating it beyond recognition is pointless and in error.

No one would ever approximate Pi to 3. Why? Because Pi to 3 will not form a circle and as such is useless.

And nobody has approximated pi to 3. The Bible simply gives the dimensions of a vessel with the diameter and the circumference stated in whole cubits rather than fractions.

But I assure you PDN that Pi approximated to the level of 3 is approximated to such a degree that it is meaningless.

Quite true, but maybe you should address that to someone who actually has approximated pi to the level of three.

The idea that this would increase the effectiveness of the communication is absurd. It would confuse anyone who knows anything about geometry, how is that more effective communication?

The only kind of person who would genuinely get confused at someone rounding dimensions to the nearest cubit in this particular context is already so thick that they probably wouldn't understand geometry anyway.

The fact that you will go to such extremes to try and gloss over something that is clearly simply a mistake (a maths mistake a book written 4,000 years ago by people with very limited knowledge of maths, what a shocker! ) simple makes you look like a die hard fundamentalist

It is hardly going to extremes to suggest that dimensions in a description are rounded to the nearest cubit. There is no maths mistake since no attempt was made to address maths. Your inability to grasp this simnple concept is stunning.

Which is why your posts claiming to find "perfectly reasonable" explanations for other contradictions and mistakes in the Bible just come off hollow.

I seriously doubt that your inability to understand dimensions being rounded to the nearest cubit in a description of a temple makes anything I say sound hollow - not to any reasonable person anyway.

vibe666 · 26-08-2008 10:13PM

okay, so if we accept that your argument about the nephilim 'could' be correct, what about the ducks then?

'all flesh shall die' i think was the quote. all flesh except for anything that can swim or float?

PDN · 26-08-2008 10:17PM

vibe666 wrote: »

okay, so if we accept that your argument about the nephilim 'could' be correct, what about the ducks then?

'all flesh shall die' i think was the quote. all flesh except for anything that can swim or float?

The ducks? You mean you are serious about that? You think that increased numbers of one species means that they will 'rule over' another species that is less numerous but more predatory and more intelligent? I'm sure you're kidding.

Pompey Magnus · 26-08-2008 10:52PM

PDN wrote: »

It doesn't get measurements wrong. It rounds them up and down. That particular chapter gives a lot of measurements in cubits. If every measurement was given in fractions then the entire chapter would become extremely unwieldy for the average reader.

Sorry but a measure rounded up and down is still wrong. That is a fact. It may indeed be more easily understood by the reader to give the measurement in whole numbers but the simple fact is that if you sacrifice accuracy for accessibility then you will provide untrue information. If the Bible wanted to be accurate whilst still being easily understood it could have easily said "approximatly ten cubits" or "just over thirty cubits". It doesn't do that though, therefore stictly speaking it provides incorrect information.

bonkey · 26-08-2008 11:07PM

Wicknight wrote: »

How is writing "6 million" more effective communication than writing "5.9 million"?

Please explain that one to me.

Dunno about you, but when someone asks me for the time...I round up/down to the nearest five minutes unless they ask me for the exact time. Even then, I round to the nearest minute, unless I've a reason to believe that they want me to supply as accurate a figure as I possible can.

In terms of "6" vs "5.9", here's a quick test....say them both out loud. Our tendency to round is not just for simplification, its for expediency and stems particularly from the spoken word.

Its also the case of target audience. For most people, 6 million is accurate enough and easier to remember....in the same way that the sun is 93 million miiles or 150 million km from teh earth, despite an elliptical orbit, and the fact that 93 million miles is really something more like 149 668 992 km.

The bible - regardless of what you or I think of its content - is clearly not intended to be a scientific work. Its not about imparting detailed knowledge of finer calculations, biology, or any other such thing. While we may not agree exactly what it is mean tto be, I'm fairly sure that PDN will readily admit that the question of where that fine line between "accurate" and "reasonably accurate" lies is something that scholars continue to hotly debate to this very day.

But just as the scientist in me knows that the post-time added to this post will undoubtedly be massively wild (when we view it in the perspective of, say, Planck-time intervals, which is as good as we get), the realist in me knows that you and I can look at when I posted this and understand what is meant.

So I find it hard to believe that you find "6 million" such a hard figure to comprehend the usage of, just as I find it difficult to believe that anyone seriously expects the bible to be an engineers reference.

After all, PI is infinite. If the bible were to accurately record that ratio, why, they'd still be writing the original.

Everyone approximates Pi. But they approximate pi to a level that it can still be used.

When were decimals introduced to mathematics?

And again...what reason do we have to believe that the bible was intended to be used as an engineering / mathematical reference?

PDN · 26-08-2008 11:10PM

Charco wrote: »

Sorry but a measure rounded up and down is still wrong. That is a fact.

No it's not. You are trying to impose pedantic and artificial standards of language upon the Bible that you would not dream of imposing anywhere else.

It would only be wrong if it was claiming to be precise to a certain degree.

I saw a NASA websire tonight that said the circumference of the earth is 25,000 miles. Now, I am pretty sure that measurement is not correct to the nearest inch, or even to the nearest mile, but that does not mean it is wrong. They have rounded the figure as we do with almost any measurement. That is the nature of communication and language and, apart from a context of mathematics or precision engineering, you need to be pretty anal to make an issue of that.

Proponents of biblical inerrancy have never claimed an accuracy for the Bible that rules out the rounding off of numbers and measurements. Stop wasting your time fighting straw men. Your insistence on doing does your cause no good whatsoever. It just looks silly.

Zombrex · 26-08-2008 11:20PM

PDN wrote: »

It is hardly going to extremes to suggest that dimensions in a description are rounded to the nearest cubit. There is no maths mistake since no attempt was made to address maths. Your inability to grasp this simnple concept is stunning.

It does if rounding up the dimensions of the structure make the structure impossible.

That is as simple as it gets. Rounding up the dimensions is not only inaccurate and pointless ("people think in whole numbers", are you serious?), but it describes a structure that becomes impossible because the numbers have been rounded too far.

Again, it would be like describing a triangle shaped room and rounding up the angles of the room to 60, 70, 60, thus making a room that could never actually exist.

You are so focused on finding a way, any way, to explain away the error in this passage that you are ignoring that the entire chapter is a detailed explanation of the temple itself. Rounding the numbers to the point of making the room impossible to exist would be not only pointless but utterly confusing for anyone reading the passage.

No one would ever do that knowingly, because anyone who would be looking at the description and understanding it would know that such a structure is impossible, unless they made a basic error about what Pi is in the first place, which is clearly what is happening here.

PDN wrote: »

I seriously doubt that your inability to understand dimensions being rounded to the nearest cubit in a description of a temple makes anything I say sound hollow - not to any reasonable person anyway.

A reasonable person who doesn't have a clue what Pi actually means, possibly.

Zombrex · 26-08-2008 11:33PM

bonkey wrote: »

In terms of "6" vs "5.9", here's a quick test....say them both out loud. Our tendency to round is not just for simplification, its for expediency and stems particularly from the spoken word.

But this was written.

I doubt anyone would suggest that it is quicker to read 5.9 million that it is to read 6 million?

bonkey wrote: »

bible - regardless of what you or I think of its content - is clearly not intended to be a scientific work. Its not about imparting detailed knowledge of finer calculations, biology, or any other such thing.

In this instance, in this chapter (1 Kings 7), it is giving detailed measurements of the Temple.

It is not an off handed approximation the way someone might say its 20 km to Bethlehem, or Jesus was born 30 years ago. The entire chapter describes down to some what unnecessary detail, the shape and structure of Solomon's house.

It doesn't make much sense that someone would describe the details of the house to such a level while also approximating the entire thing for brevity.

bonkey wrote: »

After all, PI is infinite. If the bible were to accurately record that ratio, why, they'd still be writing the original.

This idea that there is no totally accurate number for Pi so everything is an as good approximation is quite false. 3 is not an approximation of Pi. An approximation of Pi must approximate it so that a circle can be formed. How much you approximate Pi will determine the resolution of the circle. But you must still create a circle. "3" will not do this.

bonkey wrote: »

When were decimals introduced to mathematics?

About 3500 BCE. Pi was first approximated around 1900 BCE. Fractions were known in the time that this book was written. Whether the authors of the piece understood fractions is another matter, but if one assumes they were being inspired by the perfect word of God is hard to see how they wouldn't

bonkey wrote: »

And again...what reason do we have to believe that the bible was intended to be used as an engineering / mathematical reference?

All of the Bible wasn't. This chapter in this book clearly was. It is an entire chapter of measurements and detailed descriptions of the structure and form of Solomon's house.

Aside from "3" being an inaccurate approximation of Pi, the very idea that the authors would approximate for brevity in this chapter doesn't fit the context. The chapter is long and detailed. Knocking off the fractions so that the chapter would read quicker doesn't make sense.

The obvious conclusion is that it is a mistake. But that is unacceptable to someone people.

PDN · 26-08-2008 11:40PM

Wicknight wrote: »

It does if rounding up the dimensions of the structure make the structure impossible.

That is as simple as it gets. Rounding up the dimensions is not only inaccurate and pointless ("people think in whole numbers", are you serious?), but it describes a structure that becomes impossible because the numbers have been rounded too far.

I'm quite happy to keep discussing this with you as long as you want. Your refusal to let go of this pedantic nonsense is more damaging to atheism than anything I can say. You are to atheism what JC is to evangelism. If you were wise you would listen to Bonkey (who certainly is no Christian fundamentalism).

A cubit is the length of a man's forearm. It is a fairly inexact unit of measurement and makes no pretence of absolute precision. A structure does not become impossible because it is described in less than precise terms.

You are so focused on finding a way, any way, to explain away the error in this passage that you are ignoring that the entire chapter is a detailed explanation of the temple itself. Rounding the numbers to the point of making the room impossible to exist would be not only pointless but utterly confusing for anyone reading the passage.

And you are so focused on inventing an error where none exists that you miss the whole point of the passage. It is not intended to give a precise blueprint so as to enable engineers to build a replica. It is describing the Temple so that later generations can imagine what it looked like. It has succeeded perfectly well in doing that for millions of people with none of them getting confused about pi. The only confused people seem to be you and a few other atheists.

Do you get confused when people tell you there are 7 days in a week, 52 weeks in a year, and 365 days in a year? Or do you magically develop an understanding of rounded numbers in language that inexplicably deserts you when it comes to discussing the Bible?

A reasonable person who doesn't have a clue what Pi actually means, possibly.

Since neither you or Bonkey are Christians, maybe you should take your allegation about him not having a clue about pi to the A&A forum.

PDN · 26-08-2008 11:54PM

Wicknight wrote: »

But this was written.

I doubt anyone would suggest that it is quicker to read 5.9 million that it is to read 6 million?

Most people at that time were illiterate and copies of the scriptures were rare. A reader would read the Scripture out loud to the hearers.

n this instance, in this chapter (1 Kings 7), it is giving detailed measurements of the Temple.

It is not an off handed approximation the way someone might say its 20 km to Bethlehem, or Jesus was born 30 years ago. The entire chapter describes down to some what unnecessary detail, the shape and structure of Solomon's house.

It doesn't make much sense that someone would describe the details of the house to such a level while also approximating the entire thing for brevity.

Now you're just making stuff up as you go along. It does not pretend to be a detailed description with precision measurements. It is describing the Temple so people can realise what it looked like. They were able to do that if dimensions were given to the nearest cubit. The only time a fraction is used is, understandably enough, when the measure is much smaller (1.5 cubits) where rounding up or down makes a much greater difference (up to 33%) proportionately.

This idea that there is no totally accurate number for Pi so everything is an as good approximation is quite false. 3 is not an approximation of Pi. An approximation of Pi must approximate it so that a circle can be formed. How much you approximate Pi will determine the resolution of the circle. But you must still create a circle. "3" will not do this.

And, as you've been told several times, the Bible does not give 3 as an approximation of pi. It does not pretend to give any value for pi at all.

All of the Bible wasn't. This chapter in this book clearly was. It is an entire chapter of measurements and detailed descriptions of the structure and form of Solomon's house.

Aside from "3" being an inaccurate approximation of Pi, the very idea that the authors would approximate for brevity in this chapter doesn't fit the context. The chapter is long and detailed. Knocking off the fractions so that the chapter would read quicker doesn't make sense.

No, it is painting a picture of what the Temple looked like.

Nobody knocked any fractions of pi because it does not pretend to give a value for pi. Anyone who persists in saying it does even after this has been pointed out to them is either stupid or a liar.

The obvious conclusion is that it is a mistake. But that is unacceptable to someone people.

The obvious explanation is that numbers were, very reasonably, rounded up or down. But that is unacceptable to some people.

Zombrex · 26-08-2008 11:57PM

PDN wrote: »

A cubit is the length of a man's forearm. It is a fairly inexact unit of measurement and makes no pretence of absolute precision. A structure does not become impossible because it is described in less than precise terms.

Yes actually it does. That is actually the point of Pi.

Your assertion appears to be that the authors of this passage knew and understood that the measurements that they were giving out where inaccurate approximations but they did it anyway to make it easier for people to imagine the building.

That reasoning doesn't stand up to the most basic of scrutiny. As I said to Bonkey, this is not an off hand comment about distance. The chapter is a detailed description of the palace. If the authors understood the concept if Pi there is no reason they wouldn't have introduced fractions into the description. Rounding 22/7 to 3/1 is pointless.

PDN wrote: »

It has succeeded perfectly well in doing that for millions of people with none of them getting confused about pi. The only confused people seem to be you and a few other atheists.

Everyone got confused about Pi. Jews and Christians have been making excuses for this passage since the middle ages.

PDN · 27-08-2008 12:03AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes actually it does. That is actually the point of Pi.

Your assertion appears to be that the authors of this passage knew and understood that the measurements that they were giving out where inaccurate approximations but they did it anyway to make it easier for people to imagine the building.

That reasoning doesn't stand up to the most basic of scrutiny.

My assertion is that they used rounded figures to describe something, just like all of us do when we describe something for non-scientific or mathematical purposes.

The fact you feel the need to scrutinise that is amusing.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 12:06AM

PDN wrote: »

My assertion is that they used rounded figures to describe something, just like all of us do when we describe something for non-scientific or mathematical purposes.

The fact you feel the need to scrutinise that is amusing.

Well because it doesn't make sense. No one who understands the Pi ratio would round something to that degree. But then that doesn't seem to be much of an issue for you.

I find your refusal to even entertain the idea that it is simply a mistake (a far more likely proposition than the rounding up nonsense) not amusing (troubling would be more accurate) but quite telling, and was actually my original point going back to your comments with vibe.

I knew you would never accept it, but I'm still not sure what is the big deal with saying they simply got it wrong?

Do you serious thing that the measurements of Solomon's Palace was supposed to be taken as the infallible word of God?

Is it simply that you do not accept that any of the Bible can be an error?

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 12:17AM

Lets look at what it actually says -

1 Kings 7
23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Now anyone who knows anything about geometry will tell you that it wouldn't have been 30 cubits in circumference.

Even with rounding it would have been either 31 or possibly 32

The point PDN is missing is that they didn't round 3.14 to 3. They rounded 31.4 cubits to 30. They rounded down the fraction and then dropped a whole cubit.

That is both an error and pointless.

If the purpose was to keep in whole numbers the answer would be close to 31 or possibly 32 if they really didn't understand what they were doing and round up Pi despite it being closer to 31 than 32.

But 30 is not only rounding to a whole number, it is dropping a whole cubit from the length.

A cubit is not an exact measurement granted, but I very much doubt the engineers would have been so inexact that they started losing cubits here and there.

And no one is going to explain to me that 30 cubits around is easier to imagine that 31 cubits around. When they are being that exact about measuring the Palace they aren't going to start dropping whole cubits from measurements. Why bother mentioning the measurements at all?

They got it wrong. It is a mistake. It is that simple.

PDN · 27-08-2008 12:42AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Lets look at what it actually says -

1 Kings 7
23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Now anyone who knows anything about geometry will tell you that it wouldn't have been 30 cubits in circumference.

Even with rounding it would have been either 31 or possibly 32

The point PDN is missing is that they didn't round 3.14 to 3. They rounded 31.4 cubits to 30. They rounded down the fraction and then dropped a whole cubit.

That is both an error and pointless.

If the purpose was to keep in whole numbers the answer would be close to 31 or possibly 32 if they really didn't understand what they were doing and round up Pi despite it being closer to 31 than 32.

But 30 is not only rounding to a whole number, it is dropping a whole cubit from the length.

A cubit is not an exact measurement granted, but I very much doubt the engineers would have been so inexact that they started losing cubits here and there.

And no one is going to explain to me that 30 cubits around is easier to imagine that 31 cubits around. When they are being that exact about measuring the Palace they aren't going to start dropping whole cubits from measurements. Why bother mentioning the measurements at all?

They got it wrong. It is a mistake. It is that simple.

And there I was thinking you understood mathematics. It appears your maths is no better than your theology.

I am no mathematician - I dropped it after 'O' Level - but even I can see how this could have worked. You are making the rather elementary mistake of just rounding one figure (the circumference) and not the other. If the circumference measured, say 30.3l213 cubits and the diameter measured 9.64866 cubits then that would make perfect sense.

Even a non-scientific dunce like me can grasp that.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 01:03AM

PDN wrote: »

I am no mathematician - I dropped it after 'O' Level - but even I can see how this could have worked.

Of course you can see how it could have worked, you changed the numbers! :rolleyes:

All of a sudden 10 cubits has become 9.6 cubits.

This is exactly the type of nonsense I'm talking about.

So you are now not only rounding Pi, rounding the circumference, but rounding the diameter as well. Why?

What possibly explanation could you have for that. You think the engineers were stupid or something? You think they built a metal cast that was 9.6 cubits in diameter? Why?

If it was a mistake and the diameter was actually 9.6 cubits but the engineers measured and recorded it to be 10 cubits, then each "one cubit" was actually 0.96 cubits. 30 of them ends up being 28.8 cubits, which is still too short to form the circumference. Cubits can change between engineers, but on a single structure they would have been uniform. They would have claimed it was 10 cubits wide and 29 cubits in circumference.

And if was on purpose, actually built to exactly 9.6 cubits, why would the engineers produce a base of 9.6 cubits? Simply so it can have a circumference roughly 30 cubits and you can have your answer? Don't be ridiculous.

You don't even have any reason or evidence to assert that they were rounding up or down any measurements to begin with, let alone the initial measurement of 10 cubits.

Seriously how far do you want to go with this???

PDN wrote: »

You are making the rather elementary mistake of just rounding one figure (the circumference) and not the other. If the circumference measured, say 30.3l213 cubits and the diameter measured 9.64866 cubits then that would make perfect sense.

Perfect sense to who? You just changed the base to a random fraction simply to get the circumference under 30.5 so you can still claim that they were rounding fractions?

I am making the elementary mistake of assuming the engineers would not randomly produce a base of approx 9.6 cubits, then claim it to be 10, just so you can find a way of explaining away an error in the Bible.

How crazy of me :rolleyes:

Are you honestly arguing that that is a more plausible explanation for what happen than simply the description in the Bible is wrong?

Thank you PDN for rather expertly proving my original point about how believers can find "perfectly reasonable" explanations for almost anything

Schuhart · 27-08-2008 01:29AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Well of the top of my head, raping someone is an act of violence that hurts the person.

I do not wish to be physically hurt by others, and through the emotional system of empathy I assume that others share this fear and therefore it is important to me that I do not want others to be hurt. It hurts me to see others hurt.

This over rides an pleasure that the rapist may take from raping their victim. There pleasure is less important than the hurt of the victim because they are in a worse of position than the rapist if the rapist doesn't get to rape his victim.

Therefore I say that I will not allow you to rape someone, and I will use all of my power to stop you from doing that.

This is an extension of the golden rule, that was some what hijacked by Christianity and taken as their own.

Is it fair to say that the basis of this argument is that morality is determined by empathy. Unfortunately, Genghis Khan seems to be pretty clearly stating that he feels no such empathy for his enemies, hence he can rejoice in their suffering and the suffering of their relatives. So empathy would not seem to be a reliable source of morality.

Also, I take it that Genghis Khan would have had empathy for Mongol Horde members. But that would not stretch to folk outside it, so the appeal to empathy just isn’t useful.

In passing, the question of the pleasure of the rapist being less than the pain of his victim is also hardly compelling. I cannot recall the source, but I recall reading recently the thought of comparing the situation of an animal being eaten alive by a predator. Consider the benefit to the predator of satifying hunger compared to the cost of the prey. Where is morality in that situation?

I'm happy to entertain any arguments you want to bring - truly, I've studied this stuff for a while now. But can I also cut to the chase, and point out that what's missing in the atheist conception is any concept of value. A theist can, if their religion dictates, state that all human life is equal. So one life=1=1=1=1 and so on. An atheist is denied this. There is no reason why Genghis Khan should value your life as equal to his own, or care about your pain as he can't feel it. Simple as.

PDN wrote: »

The only confused people seem to be you and a few other atheists.

In passing, can I agree that whether of not the Bible contains an accurate calculation of pi is immaterial to me. Truly, its validity or otherwise just does not rest on this point.

bus77 · 27-08-2008 03:04AM

Wicknight wrote: »

You think they built a metal cast that was 9.6 cubits in diameter?

You don't even have any reason or evidence to assert that they were rounding up or down any measurements to begin with, let alone the initial measurement of 10 cubits.

In fairness, I doubt they were using a metal cast in the first place. Not in those days.

Second if they did start off with round numbers they wouldn't have been able to keep to them considering the way steel expands and contracts when cooling.

vibe666 · 27-08-2008 07:39AM

PDN wrote: »

The ducks? You mean you are serious about that? You think that increased numbers of one species means that they will 'rule over' another species that is less numerous but more predatory and more intelligent? I'm sure you're kidding.

oh dear oh dear. :rolleyes:

Indeed yes I was kidding about them ruling over us, but I was very serious about the fact that they float in water along with many other species who would be happy to float around indefinitely in times of flooding and wouldn't give a hoot for god's great (but really rather flawed) plan to kill everything off and start again.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 08:18AM

bus77 wrote: »

In fairness, I doubt they were using a metal cast in the first place. Not in those days.

Second if they did start off with round numbers they wouldn't have been able to keep to them considering the way steel expands and contracts when cooling.

Metal casting has been used for the last 6000 years (opps, thats me rounding up again :pac:).

I very much doubt the where casting steel. Bronze casting would not cause the basin to contract that much at all. But even if it did it would warp the basin rather than shrink it uniformly. That still would not explain the measurements in the Bible.

PDN · 27-08-2008 09:17AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course you can see how it could have worked, you changed the numbers! :rolleyes:

All of a sudden 10 cubits has become 9.6 cubits.

This is exactly the type of nonsense I'm talking about.

So you are now not only rounding Pi, rounding the circumference, but rounding the diameter as well. Why?

No-one is rounding pi. As has already been pointed out to you several times the Bible does not purport to give a value for pi. Only a liar or an idiot would, at this point of the debate, still claim that pi is being rounded.

Of course the diameter may be rounded up or down to the nearest cubit. I have consistently pointed out to you that the passage makes perfect sense as a description of the Temple where measurements are not given precisely but are rounded. 9.6 is closer to 10 than to 9 - so it makes sense to round it up to 10 unless you are trying to give an exact blueprint.

If you want to accuse the Bible of error then I give you a few more:
a) I don't believe Jesus necessarily fed 5000 people. He may have fed 4892 or 5357.
b) The Bible says there were 120 believers in the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost. I believe there may have been 118 or 123.
c) Gideon might only have an army of 299 to defeat the Midianites instead of 300.

What possibly explanation could you have for that. You think the engineers were stupid or something? You think they built a metal cast that was 9.6 cubits in diameter? Why?

Why not? What on earth is wrong with a cast that is 9.6 cubits in diameter? Is there something Satanic about that dimension that would make it unfit for use in a Temple?

I think the craftsmen probably made a big cast to produce a structure of impressive size - but I hardly think it was specifically designed to be a set size to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter.

If it was a mistake and the diameter was actually 9.6 cubits but the engineers measured and recorded it to be 10 cubits, then each "one cubit" was actually 0.96 cubits. 30 of them ends up being 28.8 cubits, which is still too short to form the circumference. Cubits can change between engineers, but on a single structure they would have been uniform. They would have claimed it was 10 cubits wide and 29 cubits in circumference.

What on earth are you talking about? We have no record of any engineer claiming any measurement. The only measurements we have are from an ecclesiastical historian who is describing something that no longer existed so that later generations like us can still get a good picture of what it must have looked like.

Seriously how far do you want to go with this???

As far as you want.

I'm happy to keep giving you the rope to hang yourself for as long as you want to string yourself up.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 10:57AM

PDN wrote: »

Of course the diameter may be rounded up or down to the nearest cubit. I have consistently pointed out to you that the passage makes perfect sense as a description of the Temple where measurements are not given precisely but are rounded. 9.6 is closer to 10 than to 9 - so it makes sense to round it up to 10 unless you are trying to give an exact blueprint.

But you have absolutely no reason AT ALL to suggest that the length was actually 9.6 in the first place beyond your dogged inability to admit that the passage is an error.

That is not only claiming that the authors of the passage rounded up (unsupported conjecture) but also claiming that the engineers who first built the basin decided on a fraction as the size of the cast. Why would they do that?

There is no evidence they rounded up. There is no evidence the measurements were not to the nearest cubit. Not only that but such a suggestion doesn't make sense.

PDN wrote: »

I think the craftsmen probably made a big cast to produce a structure of impressive size - but I hardly think it was specifically designed to be a set size to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter.

But that is exactly what you are suggesting.

You are saying that they didn't go to the nearest cubit, the easiest engineering measurement they had, they for some unknown and unexplained reason, decided to measure out 9 cubits and then just for fun 0.6 cubits at the end.

Why be that exact other than to simply provide you with an explanation as to why the circumference is described as 30 cubits.

Not only do you need to suggest this totally unsupported assertion, but then you need to have the authors of the Bible ignore this and round all the measurements back up to whole numbers again.

PDN this is exactly the type of thing you complain about skeptics and cynics doing when they attack things like the resurrection story of Jesus, inserting your own information into the Bible to fix a problem with your assertion.

I can quote you back countless times you have told people that there is no evidence of such and such assertion so why make it. I can quote you back your responses to any number of claims that require assumptions to be made about the actual meaning of Biblical passages, such as the assertion that Jesus was not actually a real person and the early Christians knew so.

The Bible says the diameter was 10 cubits. The Bible says the circumference was 30 cubits.

If you want to say that what the Bible actually means is that the circumference was 9.6 cubits and the circumference was 30.1 cubits simply because that fits a conclusion you want to arrive at, go ahead.

But don't get annoyed when others do exactly the same thing

TravelJunkie · 27-08-2008 11:33AM

Em, you're sounding a little crazy Wicknight.

Stayed up really late.... probably dreamt about this the whole night... and still on and on this am.

Yawn.

What are the odds?

Comments