Christian questions

[jegs2]

Why, by saying that PI=3 of course. Was that not the point?

Yes! THat is exactlky what I said! It violates the definition of pi! You wrote that it DOESNT violate any mathematical principles though.....how can it not?

Perhaps because I don't see how the following has anything to do with PI:

IKing 7:23
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.
(NIV)

Are you telling me that it would be impossible to design a round tub that measured thirty cubits around it? The thing was circular in shape, but did the top have to be the same meaurement as the bottom, or the middle?

[haas mark]

Why, by saying that PI=3 of course. Was that not the point?

Yes! THat is exactlky what I said! It violates the definition of pi! You wrote that it DOESNT violate any mathematical principles though.....how can it not?

Perhaps because I don't see how the following has anything to do with PI:

IKing 7:23
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.
(NIV)

Are you telling me that it would be impossible to design a round tub that measured thirty cubits around it?

Not that it would be impossible period, but given the dimensions it would. Unless you pull some mathematical or architectual degree (and can prove its authentication), we are on the same level, and it's mine and others' words against yours.

[jegs2]

Not that it would be impossible period, but given the dimensions it would. Unless you pull some mathematical or architectual degree (and can prove its authentication), we are on the same level, and it's mine and others' words against yours.

Ah, but see...that would be taking the Bible too literally. The passage does not specify that the circumference was the same on the top, in the middle, or on the bottom. Furthermore, while I'm no expert in measuring in cubits, I believe the measurement was somewhat subjective (something to do with folk's forearms and such), so one man's cubit could be different from that of another man.

[haas mark]

Not that it would be impossible period, but given the dimensions it would. Unless you pull some mathematical or architectual degree (and can prove its authentication), we are on the same level, and it's mine and others' words against yours.

Ah, but see...that would be taking the Bible too literally. The passage does not specify that the circumference was the same on the top, in the middle, or on the bottom. Furthermore, while I'm no expert in measuring in cubits, I believe the measurement was somewhat subjective (something to do with folk's forearms and such), so one man's cubit could be different from that of another man.

True this, but not long enough to be a full 31.4 cubits.

And circumference in which position doesn't really matter. SHow me where it shows which position the circumference was. You can't. Concession Accepted.

[jegs2]

Not that it would be impossible period, but given the dimensions it would. Unless you pull some mathematical or architectual degree (and can prove its authentication), we are on the same level, and it's mine and others' words against yours.

Ah, but see...that would be taking the Bible too literally. The passage does not specify that the circumference was the same on the top, in the middle, or on the bottom. Furthermore, while I'm no expert in measuring in cubits, I believe the measurement was somewhat subjective (something to do with folk's forearms and such), so one man's cubit could be different from that of another man.

True this, but not long enough to be a full 31.4 cubits.

And circumference in which position doesn't really matter. SHow me where it shows which position the circumference was. You can't. Concession Accepted.

Whatever

[beyond hope]

bad writing is *exactly* what I expect from mouldy old 3 or 4 times translated poetry. It's *not* what one would expect from the "divinely inspired word of god." If god is really that poor of a communicator that you scratch your head trying to figure out what his book is saying, maybe that says all we need to know.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

If Christianity is moral, then why do people need to apoligize for being Christians?

"Apology" primarily means "a formal justification."

Wrong, it primarily means "An acknowledgement expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense" Your definition is the secondary one. Too bad it applies in either case.

Why does God need to sacrifice himself to himself in order to change a law he made himself?

So that He could bring unto Himself the beings He created for Himself.

This answer makes no sense. And this answer does not address the point that the law was not changed.

Okay, so God created the universe, but what has he done since then?

Almost everything.

The burden of proof is squarely upon you. The only testament to the actions of God can be found in a single book of questionable pedigree. Give examples of what God has done in historical times, or else, justify the acts of God that are found in the Bible as something other than natural phenomena or myths.

Why do Christians work so hard for someone that never shows them any respect?

Do we deserve anything from God?

That doesn't address the question.

Why does God think it more important to build churches than to help starving kids in Africa?

Um.

No.

That doesn't address the question. If we presuppose the existence of God, then observational evidence exists that God is more concerned with the building of churches than the helping of starving children in Africa. For example, the current regime in the United States of America wants to show favor to Christian groups and Christian charities. Ergo, God must be rewarding the building of churches in the United States with the favor of the regime. Whereas poor children in Ethiopia and Somalia die by the dozens every day.

If no one can find God without faith, then what happens when God loses faith in himself?

Um.

No.

For somebody who wants to defend his faith, you're doing a very poor job of it. You've evaded most of the questions asked of you.

[neoolong]

Ah, but see...that would be taking the Bible too literally. The passage does not specify that the circumference was the same on the top, in the middle, or on the bottom. Furthermore, while I'm no expert in measuring in cubits, I believe the measurement was somewhat subjective (something to do with folk's forearms and such), so one man's cubit could be different from that of another man.

Right, there is such a thing as too literal for something that is supposed to be taken literally.

Cubits is irrelevant. There is one guy mentioned and cubits would be based on the guy who built the thing. And it is irrelevant because there is no conversion of units. The units cancel out and you are still left with 3.

[Tosho]

You bring up something very interesting, Gricksigger.

...What matters is that all books in the Bible were written by authors when they were filled with the Holy Spirit that made their work inded the Word of God, inerrant, infallible, etc.

Okay, so the Bible is entirely infallible. So explain to me a few things, please...

For example, Christianity has a pretty impressive foundation-- many miracles, like the Loaves and Fishes, and the walking on water, were seen by crowds of dozens to 'thousands'. So it's not like a collection of stories with just one guy who heard it from a neighbor's uncle... you know.

But there are some oddities, too... for example, the prophet Elisha also performed miracles, like pouring a vast amount of oil from a tiny vial (Kings II; 4:1-7), he also revived the dead (Mark 5:35-43) and ascended into heaven alive (Kings II; 2:9-14). Yet the Torah never claimed Elisha to be the Messiah or God, in fact it warns against the coming of false prophets who will perform real miracles and warns the Jews not to follow anyone who tries to lead them from the Torah's teachings (Deuteronomy; 13: 2-6).

Jesus's Davidic lineage, another claim to Messiah status, came under scrutiny. Here I was pointed to the work Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen, a personal acquaintance of mine, who has done his own research in comparing the New Testament to the Torah. He found some discrepancies between Matthew and Luke-- Matthew 1:6-16 said that twenty-eight generations seperated Jesus from King David, whereas Luke 3:23-38 shows forty-three generations of seperation. It was even pointed out that the two apostles did not even agree on Jesus's paternal grandfather.

My friend Rabbi Kelemen also found an essay by Catholic theologian John P. Meier, which was endorsed by the Archbishop of Milan, who admits that the geneologies "are of questionable historicity". The essay was "Jesus of History: Origins and Ministry" by John P. Meier, in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1319.

There are some fascinating things one can find when one looks around. Most notable are these contradictions. Also, bear in mind that the Messiah is is to be born of Jesse, not Mary, and named Emmanuel, not Yeshu, and that his arrival into Jerusalem will be on the back of a white donkey (literally, "hamor levan," in Hebrew, a "white ass") led by the Prophet Elisha. The arrival of the Messiah will also usher in a thousand-yera reign of Peace, which clearly has not happened yet.

So, what exactly are you claiming to be "infallible"? The Christian validation for Jesus rests on Hebrew prophesy from the Old Testament, and according to the OT... you're on thin ice.

"'az, tagid'li ha'tchuvah, bevakeshah."

Excellent post Coyote! I had a vague knowledge of why the jews rejected Jesus but I could never place my finger on them as it were. The info in your post will almost certainly help next time I debate a christian.

[haas mark]

bad writing is *exactly* what I expect from mouldy old 3 or 4 times translated poetry. It's *not* what one would expect from the "divinely inspired word of god." If god is really that poor of a communicator that you scratch your head trying to figure out what his book is saying, maybe that says all we need to know.

This is what we call bad interpretation and translation, not bad writing.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

bad writing is *exactly* what I expect from mouldy old 3 or 4 times translated poetry. It's *not* what one would expect from the "divinely inspired word of god." If god is really that poor of a communicator that you scratch your head trying to figure out what his book is saying, maybe that says all we need to know.

This is what we call bad interpretation and translation, not bad writing.

Well, unless God's gone away, we shouldn't have this problems. He should devining guide the translators like he devinely inspired the 'original' authors.

[haas mark]

bad writing is *exactly* what I expect from mouldy old 3 or 4 times translated poetry. It's *not* what one would expect from the "divinely inspired word of god." If god is really that poor of a communicator that you scratch your head trying to figure out what his book is saying, maybe that says all we need to know.

This is what we call bad interpretation and translation, not bad writing.

Well, unless God's gone away, we shouldn't have this problems. He should devining guide the translators like he devinely inspired the 'original' authors.

LMAO!!

[beyond hope]

Exactly... one edition of the King James version had a misprint so that it read "Thou Shalt Commit Adultery." How could God possibly allow his book to be changed like that? Shouldn't the invisible hand of God have changed the typeset back to the correct wording?

[data_link]

Exactly... one edition of the King James version had a misprint so that it read "Thou Shalt Commit Adultery." How could God possibly allow his book to be changed like that? Shouldn't the invisible hand of God have changed the typeset back to the correct wording?

Beter yet, are you sure that that wasn't a direct result of God's hand removing a massive inaccuracy that had been present all this time?

[neoolong]

Exactly... one edition of the King James version had a misprint so that it read "Thou Shalt Commit Adultery." How could God possibly allow his book to be changed like that? Shouldn't the invisible hand of God have changed the typeset back to the correct wording?

Hahaha. Unfallible God my ass.

[tharkûn]

Time to kill the stupid pi=3 crap. Ever hear of a concept called SIGNIFICANT FIGURES?

When you work with pi you inherently have a certain number of figures you carry around, i.e. if you use 3.14 as your value of pi then using any greater number of significant figures is incorrect. Likewise if you take a reading with 1 significant figure (i.e. 10) then you should report any calculations derived from it for 1 significant figure (i.e. 30).

Another option is that the tub WASN'T A BLOOD CYLINDER. Like say is a BLOODY CONE with diametre of 10 at its base and a circumfrence of 10 at some perimetre other than at the base.

Come on guys this has been hacked to death before. Its:
1. Moronic. No matter what values were reported they be wrong if they weren't expressed as fractions of pi, there is always rounding error. So it's at the significant figure ... big deal.
2. Stupid considering nobody knows where the circumfrence was measrued or what the object looked like. It might cylindrical or conic or spherical, etc.

Don't water down your arguements by plying a stupid point that was dead before you were born.

[neoolong]

Time to kill the stupid pi=3 crap. Ever hear of a concept called SIGNIFICANT FIGURES?

When you work with pi you inherently have a certain number of figures you carry around, i.e. if you use 3.14 as your value of pi then using any greater number of significant figures is incorrect. Likewise if you take a reading with 1 significant figure (i.e. 10) then you should report any calculations derived from it for 1 significant figure (i.e. 30).

Another option is that the tub WASN'T A BLOOD CYLINDER. Like say is a BLOODY CONE with diametre of 10 at its base and a circumfrence of 10 at some perimetre other than at the base.

Come on guys this has been hacked to death before. Its:
1. Moronic. No matter what values were reported they be wrong if they weren't expressed as fractions of pi, there is always rounding error. So it's at the significant figure ... big deal.
2. Stupid considering nobody knows where the circumfrence was measrued or what the object looked like. It might cylindrical or conic or spherical, etc.

Don't water down your arguements by plying a stupid point that was dead before you were born.

1. If it's literal then there can be no error. Thus no rounding error and since it did not say there was the usage of significant digits it is wrong. And you do not use them when you are building something, especially if it is as large as rounding to the nearest 10 cubits.

2. It said it was circular and gave measurements on that. Since the argument is against literality you cannot just say the measurements were taken from elsewhere on the object if it did not say so.

[tharkûn]

neoolong:

I measured the speed of light to be 3*10^8 m/s.

Can that be taken literally? Yes indeed it can. Is that absolutely correct? No. c is 299792458 m/s (and yes that number is absolute for light in a vacuum), however my lab set up (basic optics course) was crap in comparison to NIST's. So it is perfectly fine to report it to 1 significant figure.

You can take the first statement as being literally correct, as litterally means being literal or:
Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.

2. It said it was circular and gave measurements on that. Since the argument is against literality you cannot just say the measurements were taken from elsewhere on the object if it did not say so.

Basic geometry. A sphere is circularly symmetric. Likewise a cylinder, likewise a cone. Likewise a cylinder with some artistic bumps and garishes. There is NO evidence suggesting one of these in preference to another. Hell the simplest explanation is that the "brim" is .225 cubits wide and the circumference does not measure the brim. Gee could that be why later they give the dimensions of the brim in the same chapter?

In short you have no evidence from which to make a claim that the measurements were taken from the same place or that the object was indeed a simple cylinder; or can you offer evidence?

Your whole arguement comes down to how the measurement was done. Do you want to state that there is *only* one way that can be literally described as "compass it round about"?

A far easier target than playing semantics with pi=3 is to go for the volume of the damn thing (described once as 2000 baths and later as 3000 baths). Rather than dicking with a 6% error you might try going for a 33% one.

Pi = 3 depends entirely upon how you assume the measurement was done and how you assume the object was shaped. Given that no evidence exists for either its point blank stupidity to say that the only possible literal interpretation is the one that's wrong.

[beyond hope]

Tharkun, Neoolong, this is why I stick with "it's an uninteresting work of fiction" and leave it at that. Giving it the benefit of logical analysis is more effort than it deserves.

[neoolong]

neoolong:

I measured the speed of light to be 3*10^8 m/s.

Can that be taken literally? Yes indeed it can. Is that absolutely correct? No. c is 299792458 m/s (and yes that number is absolute for light in a vacuum), however my lab set up (basic optics course) was crap in comparison to NIST's. So it is perfectly fine to report it to 1 significant figure.

You can take the first statement as being literally correct, as litterally means being literal or:
Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.

2. It said it was circular and gave measurements on that. Since the argument is against literality you cannot just say the measurements were taken from elsewhere on the object if it did not say so.

Basic geometry. A sphere is circularly symmetric. Likewise a cylinder, likewise a cone. Likewise a cylinder with some artistic bumps and garishes. There is NO evidence suggesting one of these in preference to another. Hell the simplest explanation is that the "brim" is .225 cubits wide and the circumference does not measure the brim. Gee could that be why later they give the dimensions of the brim in the same chapter?

In short you have no evidence from which to make a claim that the measurements were taken from the same place or that the object was indeed a simple cylinder; or can you offer evidence?

Your whole arguement comes down to how the measurement was done. Do you want to state that there is *only* one way that can be literally described as "compass it round about"?

When the argument is made that it is literal, adding stuff to it that is not mentioned defeats the purpose of being literal. Therefore, unless mentioned it doesn't "exist." Yes that is stupid. I'm not the one that makes that argument.

A far easier target than playing semantics with pi=3 is to go for the volume of the damn thing (described once as 2000 baths and later as 3000 baths). Rather than dicking with a 6% error you might try going for a 33% one.

Okay. I'll check that out.

Pi = 3 depends entirely upon how you assume the measurement was done and how you assume the object was shaped. Given that no evidence exists for either its point blank stupidity to say that the only possible literal interpretation is the one that's wrong.

I don't say that every possible literal interpretation is wrong, just the ones that say it is the exact word for word literal account with nothing added or open to vagueness.

[Slartibartfast]

The intepretation of a history book is what the events mean in history or whether they were good or bad, etc. Not what happened.

Unless you're questioning the intentions of who wrote the book...
but that'd be blasphemy, wouldn't it?

There's no room for "interpretation" in history books, for things that happened. If the author says "the ship sank" he means that the ship actually sank. Not that maybe the captain of the ship had a problem and he sank into depression.

If the ship didn't sink, then it's a flat out lie, but it's not "open for interpretation".

[Slartibartfast]

Thats for a different thread, but I"d like to be shown where in the Bible it claims pi equals 3 (I believe I know what you are reffering to)

1 Kings 7:23. And what thread is it for?

IKing 7:23
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.
(NIV)

IKing 7:23
23 And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.
(NKJ)

Two different versions of the Bible quoted above -- Don't see a reference to PI equalling three here, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Circumference = PI * diameter
Circumference = 30
diameter = 10

PI = 3

Even if they "rounded up", the circumference should be 31, not 30.

[haas mark]

Slarti: Look back a vouple of pages. I already argued that with him.

[InnerBrat]

The intepretation of a history book is what the events mean in history or whether they were good or bad, etc. Not what happened.

Unless you're questioning the intentions of who wrote the book...
but that'd be blasphemy, wouldn't it?

There's no room for "interpretation" in history books, for things that happened. If the author says "the ship sank" he means that the ship actually sank. Not that maybe the captain of the ship had a problem and he sank into depression.

If the ship didn't sink, then it's a flat out lie, but it's not "open for interpretation".

But histroy books don't stop at 'the ship sank', do they? they tend to go into the casues of the sinking.

For example, if a historian is particular anti-Belgium, he might say 'the Belgians sank the ship', or contort the facts in a less-blatent lie way, when what actually happened was a fleet of crazed penguins attacked the ship and stripped it for scrap metal, although no one saw this because all wirneses were sold into slavery to the seals.

No, the exact meanings of words in a decently written history book is not open for interpretation, but all historians, just like all scientists, have an a priori opinion they want to put across, leaving room for misinterpretation of some facts, ignoring others, and outright lying about others.

[haas mark]

They go into the POSSIBLE causes.