50,000 Errors in the Bible...Is Bible God's Word??

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Quote:
Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Yeah.
What should I say to the fool who neglected to record the diameter to 6 decimal places?
Or the fool who thought it important?

1 Reply

@neologist,

How about the fool who denies there are contradictions and scientific inaccuracies in the scriptures even when they're directly quoted? Or the fool who responds to facts and logic with mere sarcasm, empty rhetoric and logical fallacies such as non sequiturs, red herrings and ad homs, rather than critical reasoning?

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Quote:
The value of pi
The mathematical number π is the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference. The value of π truncated at 10 digits is 3.141592653.[4] The bible itself gives us a different value of π in 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." "It was a handbreadth in thickness... It held two thousand baths" - 1 Kings 7: 23,26(NIV) abbrev.

A circle with a diameter of 10 cubits should have a circumference of about 31.4159265358979(…) cubits (10×π) and not 30. Alternatively, if we used these numbers to calculate π (circumference ÷ diameter) we would get a result of precisely 3. However, these preliminary calculations do not account for two additional dimensions given in verse 26: the wall thickness and volume quoted above.

Additionally, the exact ancient measurements are unknown, but the cubit is approximately 18", the handbreadth is in the approximate range of 2.5 to 4 inches, and the bath is approximately 5.8 gallons (1,339.8 cubic inches).

Incorporating thickness of the sea (verse 26: a handbreadth) into the calculation makes the inside diameter somewhere in the range of 172 and 175". Additionally, since the volume of the sea was the critical dimension, the circumference was most likely measured as the inside diameter of the sea. Calculating π as (circumference / 172) and (circumference / 175) yields π in the range of 3.0857 to 3.1395.

Going backwards from the volume back to π, yields a diameter of 172.3 inches. 2,679,600 (in^3) = 1.333 * π * r^3 r = 172.3 inches

Remember that our ancient measurements are approximate!

Additionally, the scripture says "He made the sea of cast metal"... meaning that it was, in fact, constructed and therefore existed. If the measurements are reported, then they were taken from a material object and therefore cannot violate the laws of mathematics.

On the other hand, perhaps the circumference is accurate at 30 cubits, and the diameter, 9.5492965855137(…) cubits, has been rounded off to the nearest cubit, i.e, 10 cubits. While from context it would appear that it is the diameter (the 10 cubits) that is most strongly defined, coming first and all with the other measurement seeming more of an afterthought, it should be noted that a few verses earlier we have:
1 Kings 7:15
For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about.
…a circumference defined but not a diameter.

I thought you would be too intelligent to post this drivel. So, I'll give you a mulligan and check your link when I get a chance. Don't expect me to be kind. I can see the level I am dealing with.

0 Replies

@FBM,

or the fool, who when is told his quotes regarding apparent CONTRADICTIONS (something which never came up) {ERRORS*} are not errors but are his own utter lack of discursion, continues to think eh is right anyways XD AHAHAHAHHAAHHA

1 Reply

@GorDie,

GorDie wrote:

or the fool, who when is told his quotes regarding apparent CONTRADICTIONS (something which never came up) {ERRORS*} are not errors but are his own utter lack of discursion, continues to think eh is right anyways XD AHAHAHAHHAAHHA

Just feel that Christian compassion! Very Happy

Your weasel on this one is exactly what?:

Quote:

Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

It's like you build a robot and program it to murder your wife and then get upset when it murders your wife. It doesn't make sense. But the entire genesis story does not support a god that is all knowing at all.

But we are not robots.

Krumple wrote:

The flood story is a good example. Seeing that the entire Earth is corrupt so he wants to cleanse it? He didn't foresee this happening? The list goes on and on. So how christians come to the conclusion that god is all knowing baffles me because the biblical accounts do not support an all knowing god.

Straighten me out here. Who was it who built the ark? Abraham?
No wait.
You still haven't explained how Abraham managed to lead the Jews out of Egypt.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Krumple wrote:

It's like you build a robot and program it to murder your wife and then get upset when it murders your wife. It doesn't make sense. But the entire genesis story does not support a god that is all knowing at all.

neologist wrote:

But we are not robots.

I am not saying we are robots. I am referring to the creator of the robot. If you create something knowing exactly what it's outcome will be, you can't be shocked when it carries out that outcome. You can't understand a simple analogy?

Krumple wrote:

The flood story is a good example. Seeing that the entire Earth is corrupt so he wants to cleanse it? He didn't foresee this happening? The list goes on and on. So how christians come to the conclusion that god is all knowing baffles me because the biblical accounts do not support an all knowing god.

neologist wrote:

Straighten me out here. Who was it who built the ark? Abraham?
No wait.
You still haven't explained how Abraham managed to lead the Jews out of Egypt.

I really like that your ONLY counter argument is that I got a name reference wrong. Since I referenced the wrong character, my entire argument is therefore invalid? Nice typical christian dodge to the entire conversation. Why not actually address the argument? Or should we also make sure spelling and grammar is correct to otherwise it's all invalid? So far it stands that you have nothing to counter with except petty error in character references.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I don't recall having brought up the subject of fools.
I hope you are not referring to my response to the subject of pi.
I will have to stand by my assessment of the one who brought up the issue.

The bible was not written as a scientific treatise. It is an explanation in basic language of why we have war and crime and sickness and death, how God will solve the problem, and how we can live satisfactory lives in the meantime.

Someone in the last page or two complained that Isaiah's description of the earth as a 'circle' was insufficient, notwithstaning the fact that it predated Greek thought by several hundred years

BTW, Moses' statement that the earth was 'suspended on nothing' dates back to 16th century BCE.

Should the Bible have recorded lengths and measures in decimal form?
I'm sorry. Every time I think of think of it, reverse peristalsis sets in. Perhaps, while they were at it, bible writers should have included plans for a reciprocating engine. Just think of how it could have advanced mankind!!

2 Replies

@neologist,

I was deliberately ambiguous about the subject of fools.

The claim:
The biblical representation of pi is inaccurate.
The evidence:
The biblical representation of pi is inaccurate.

That's about it.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

I really like that your ONLY counter argument is that I got a name reference wrong. Since I referenced the wrong character, my entire argument is therefore invalid? Nice typical christian dodge to the entire conversation. Why not actually address the argument? Or should we also make sure spelling and grammar is correct to otherwise it's all invalid? So far it stands that you have nothing to counter with except petty error in character references.

I'm sorry to have brought you grief.
But you insisted on the accuracy of your scholarship, even after correction, first by Frank, then by me. All the while you maintained that you understand the Bible better than either of us.

Well, you may have Frank. I won't say. But I have fire for all your strawmen.

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I was deliberately ambiguous about the subject of fools.

The claim:
The biblical representation of pi is inaccurate.
The evidence:
The biblical representation of pi is inaccurate.

That's about it.

Counterclaim:
The biblical non representation of pi is irrelevant.

BTW, I haven't researched this; but I don't know of any way that any ancient script could have represented those values in an understandable fashion.

1 Reply

@neologist,

The claim as stated wasn't that it was relevant to any particular argument. It was limited to the observation that it was inaccurate. It demonstrated the truth of that claim. QED.

0 Replies

Quote:

Good deeds

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Someone in the last page or two complained that Isaiah's description of the earth as a 'circle' was insufficient, notwithstaning the fact that it predated Greek thought by several hundred years

If the knowledge were to originate from god informing the people of the shape, wouldn't it be more accurate of a description to not use round or circle? I find it suspect that you only suggest a few hundred years prior to the greek. The greek records indicate they were aware of the shape of the Earth in the 6th century bc. It is possible the ideas floated around long before that.

I am not sure why they wouldn't have made inferences to the shape of the earth while observing other objects, not only the moon and the sun but objects on the Earth and how light landed on them. Examining how the sun light created the different phases of the moon should have been clear enough. I guess no one bothered, or maybe it was just so obvious they didn't bother recording it.

The issue stands if the knowledge originates from a god informing the ignorant people of the shape of the Earth, it should have been more accurate than to say a circle or round.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

on the accuracy of your scholarship, even after correction, first by Frank, then by me. All the while you maintained that you understand the Bible better than either of us.

Well, you may have Frank. I won't say. But I have fire for all your strawmen.

Show me where I said I understood it better than either of you? Where did I make that statement?

I find it funny that you talk about strawmaning when you have done it twice now to me. First you attempt to claim that I have never read the bible and now you say that I claimed I understand the bible better than both you and Frank. Show me where I have made these statements.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

on the accuracy of your scholarship, even after correction, first by Frank, then by me. All the while you maintained that you understand the Bible better than either of us.

Also doesn't pointing out my error only prove my point for me? If a god is suppose to have better accuracy than me, shouldn't the details have been recorded more consistently? You pointing out that I made an error puts me in the same group as those who attempted to record the events. They made errors because it wasn't an accurate story to begin with. It was fables being passed around and probably completely made up to begin with. Which is why the details are different.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

As far as the Abraham gaffe is concerned, I think I am right.
But, OK.
You get a mulligan. We all make mistakes.
So, getting back to that guy who I believe wrote the Pentateuch and Job.
Are you ready to defend your assertions?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

For what it is worth, and I imagine it to be very little in this here thread. The Hebrew word "dur" which is translated "circle", also means "ball", or "sphere".

2 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Smileyrius wrote:

For what it is worth, and I imagine it to be very little in this here thread. The Hebrew word "dur" which is translated "circle", also means "ball", or "sphere".

The hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 44:22 does not mean a spherical Earth. The root word only occurs in the hebrew bible once as a verb, job 26:10.

All the other times it is used it is used as a noun. The term refers to a "circle instrument", probably a device used to create circles, like a compass.

You can see it's use in isaiah 44:13 where it refers to this circle instrument.

"The carpenter stretches a line, marks it out with a stylus, fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he makes it in human form, with human beauty, to be set up in a shrine."

It is definitely not referring to a sphere. What is described was the horizon line between the ground and where the sky meet when looking into the distance. If you are on a high enough plane you can see this 360 degree view that appears where the sky and the ground meet. This is the circle that is referenced.

They had no clue that the Earth was an oblong spheroid.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

As far as the Abraham gaffe is concerned, I think I am right.

The content of my point stands regardless of the reference character name. So what exactly are you right about? To be honest, I think you don't even have any idea what my point even was. Going back to my analogy about the robot is one indication that you have a very superficial reading any time anyone makes a statement. Then on top of that you read more into what is not even there. Like claiming I said that I understood the bible better than both you and Franky.

I would go as far as to suggest you wouldn't have even picked out my error had Frank not noticed it and pointed it out.

neologist wrote:

But, OK.
You get a mulligan. We all make mistakes.

Oh well it's good that you can get passed it and good to know that imperfection isn't a hold up for you. Your gracious pardoning is appreciated.

neologist wrote:

So, getting back to that guy who I believe wrote the Pentateuch and Job.
Are you ready to defend your assertions?

Why is there this constant build up to this, didn't you already say you had fire ready for my strawmen? But let me repeat what I said earlier, I think you don't even know what the point I was making, even is.

1 Reply

50,000 Errors in the Bible...Is Bible God's Word??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know