quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: as far as the PI thing...
I've looked into it, and do not find the Bible guilty of misrepresenting PI. However, there was a Kentucky politician who, upon reading the above passage, did come to the wrong conclusion--that PI = 3. He then tried to legislate that all state school books should "be corrected" so that PI =3, not some irrational number.
That is the danger, that the wrong information will be extracted from the Bible and forced upon the world.
It seems the greatest danger of Biblical Literalism is when the Literalist misinterpret the Bible.
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: There's also some universal similarities between several different creation stories from across the globe.
... if they are "universal" similarities, should they not occur in *all* creation stories around the globe rather than *several*? Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: "I hate God," ... Nobody would ever say that seriously because everyone realizes that by saying that they are saying that god exists.
"I hate the Gilmore Girls"
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got one quick question for the Biblical literalists among us. The story of Noah and the ark is probably one of the biggest stretches in logic in accepting the literal truth of the Bible. There are countless questions that have been asked on the subject, but I just want to ask one.
We're always taught that Noah was commanded to take two (or seven) of every animal on Earth into the ark. Or, as it says in the King James Version:
quote:And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
So if God wanted Noah to take a sample of every animal in the whole world (or, as he said, "every living thing of all flesh"), did that include fish? Why would God want to save fish from the flood by putting them on a boat? And if Moses wasn't commanded to take fish on the ark, is the Bible really a perfect and accurate account of that incident?
Not the toughest question about the whole Noah's Ark incident, but I'm curious how you all interpret this passage Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's one of those passages where, of all the possible "gotchas," this would be the lamest. While I can imagine God making it clear that he expected Noah to preserve the saltwater fish (assuming the rain from Heaven was freshwater), I'm willing to write this one off as something that God didn't need to spell out explicitly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I cared, I was more concerned with omissions, such as where Cain's wife came from, or clear contradictions, such as how many beings were at Jesus' resurrection or exactly how and when Judas died. It took a while, but I mostly lost the interest in Biblical gotchas. Unless, of course, someone starts telling me why homosexuality must be bad because it says so in Leviticus or similar. Then all bets are off.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A more important question to me about the flood is, "If the entire Earth is covered in water, won't all the freshwater fish ummm... die? I mean, they're in salt water, that usually kills them. Also, adding all the fresh water to the Earth would dramatically alter the salt content of the oceans, and I thought the balance in the ocean was such that a massive melting of the poles would result in the death of key species that can't handle freshwater... umm... yeah, I just see a lot of death resulting from this."
And after the flood, did Noah go around the globe and plant animals on the continents where they belonged? Platypus, you go to Australia. Rhinos, you go to Africa. Beavers, you go to north America. Polar bears, you go to the north pole. Penguins, you're headed to the south pole. There are so many wildly different species that occur in one place and one place only. To think that Noah had the presence of mind (and time) to save them all and put them back...
The flood is something that I never could believe. I massive flood, maybe, but one that covered the entire earth? Unlikely. I boat large enough to save all the species of the world? Doubly unlikely.
But a flood large enough to cover a significant portion of the world that was known at that time? Maybe. The known world at that point would have been pretty small compared to the known world today.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And rescuing the animals indigenous to the known areas, while still herculean, would be a great deal easier than rescuing every animal everywhere.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Bible was a work penned by man. It rebelled. It evolved. There are many copies. They make no sense. They offer internally inconsistent contradictions. Same copies are taught differently by everyone. Some things are read literally by some people. Some things are read figuratively by some people. Some things are translated by the word. Other things are not translated literally. Some explicit statements are handled explicitly. Some explicit statements are tacitly ignored. Different Christian factions have vastly different ways of doing this. Different Christian factions translate this perfect text differently.
Ah, but you left out the most important part! And it has a plan.
I don't consider the Bible to be a history or science textbook. I grew up in a tradition that claimed that every detail of the Bible is completely true, but I've come to believe that this is not the case. I think that "inspired by God" means exactly what it says -- inspired, not dictated. That means that there will be inaccuracies due to faulty memories and such, and that's fine.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do rather think, at the least, if the Old Testament were meant to be taken as literal history (and, for the record, I do not believe this), then far more species ought to be showing signs of the kind of inbreeding researchers see in the cheetah.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Stories are equipment for living." ~ Kenneth Burke
I honestly think that's what the Bible's all about. It's not an accurate historical account, but a collection of myths to help an ancient group of people live their life and give it meaning and structure.
Is it reality? Doubtful, but there are some principles that seem to reappear across the globe. Be kind to your neighbor etc.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I do rather think, at the least, if the Old Testament were meant to be taken as literal history (and, for the record, I do not believe this), then far more species ought to be showing signs of the kind of inbreeding researchers see in the cheetah.
Including humans. You also have to wonder which of the inhabitants of the ark was carrying the gonorrhea and the syphilis.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may not have been pairs. After all, bacteria don't have cloven hoofs and don't chew their cud. Maybe they were supposed to go up in sevens. I wonder how Noah sacrificed just one, though.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If syphilis and gonorrhea aren't unclean, there's definitely a sense of humor beyond my understanding at work.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The Bible is a Perfect Text and Accurate History.
Anyone who insists that the Bible is a perfect text is themselves trying to render history inaccurate. The Bible has been mistranslated many times, sometimes deliberately, sometimes no doubt by accident. It's been edited for various reasons, including the changes made by King James who rendered it more sexist and derogatory towards women, and (in my opinion) many modern English language versions have removed layers of meaning, and in some cases beauty, from the earlier versions.
There are historically accurate accounts or descriptions in the Bible, but it's definitely stretching the truth to claim that the Bible is historically accurate in its entirety. But then what written history is?
Posts: 2451 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The Bible is a Perfect Text and Accurate History.
Anyone who insists that the Bible is a perfect text is themselves trying to render history inaccurate. The Bible has been mistranslated many times, sometimes deliberately, sometimes no doubt by accident. It's been edited for various reasons, including the changes made by King James who rendered it more sexist and derogatory towards women, and (in my opinion) many modern English language versions have removed layers of meaning, and in some cases beauty, from the earlier versions.
King James didn't change anything in the Bible. It's like Stephen King says about the movies based on his books. No matter what they do, the books are still there, unchanged. Same here. King James produced a flawed translation, but it didn't change the Bible, which remained untouched.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Lisa, you would be among those who believe in the verbal inspiration and perfection of the Bible text in its original languages. (I know you would not include the Greek New Testament in this, but the middle portion of Daniel was written in Aramaic. Hence the plural, even for you.)
For my money, the New American Standard Bible is generally the translation that reflects the best scholarship, though in comparing half a dozen different translations, I will sometimes find some other version that renders a verse, clause, or phrase better or more clearly. Sometimes even the New International Version says it best, though I usually do not give as much weight to it as the NASB, NKJV, or NRSV.
I think you will find though that many experts in the writings we Christians call Old Testament (even Jewish scholars) will tell you there is clear evidence of changes in the Hebrew text, where scribes were forced to update certain terms to preserve the original meaning, as the meanings of certain words changed over two millennia.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: King James didn't change anything in the Bible. It's like Stephen King says about the movies based on his books. No matter what they do, the books are still there, unchanged. Same here. King James produced a flawed translation, but it didn't change the Bible, which remained untouched.
Well, we could talk about the First Council of Nicaea or the many times that books were either left out or changed, but I think there is something important here. No matter what version of The Bible that you have in your hands there is no possible way that you have the original, the version that any of us have is one that has been decided upon and edited by councils and Kings, and if thats the case, then that process itself introduces imperfection and inconsistency.
You are correct, The Bible may still be there, but I am highly skeptical that we can or ever could have access to it.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So Lisa, you would be among those who believe in the verbal inspiration and perfection of the Bible text in its original languages.
Yes and no. We've been through this here before. The Torah (Pentateuch) was dictated word by work to Moses, and what we have now, except for the possibility of a few places where the vowel "o" was written with or without a waw, is the same thing that Moses wrote down.
The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 Minor prophets, were written under the influence of prophecy. A lesser perception of God than Moses had, but still a very high one. The content is from God, but the precise wording was chosen by the prophets themselves.
The books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra/Nehemiah and Chronicles were written under yet a lesser degree of perception of God, which we call Ruach HaKodesh. That means Holy Spirit. The concepts are from God, but the content and wording is from the authors.
Yes, that means that Daniel is not a book of prophecy. But telling the future in visions is not what prophecy is, or what it's about.
So you can't say something categorical about "the Bible", as such, since the Bible is made up of different sections that have different levels of coming from God.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: (I know you would not include the Greek New Testament in this, but the middle portion of Daniel was written in Aramaic. Hence the plural, even for you.)
Fair enough.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I think you will find though that many experts in the writings we Christians call Old Testament (even Jewish scholars) will tell you there is clear evidence of changes in the Hebrew text, where scribes were forced to update certain terms to preserve the original meaning, as the meanings of certain words changed over two millennia.
Nah. No such thing ever happened. And when it comes to "Jewish scholars", there are Jews who are scholars who advocate the documentary hypothesis. Being Jewish isn't a failsafe against stupidity. However, there's zero evidence of the kind of changes you're talking about. The text was passed down as part of a living tradition. Changes in means such as the kind you're talking about were dealt with orally. The text was not changed.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: King James didn't change anything in the Bible. It's like Stephen King says about the movies based on his books. No matter what they do, the books are still there, unchanged. Same here. King James produced a flawed translation, but it didn't change the Bible, which remained untouched.
Well, we could talk about the First Council of Nicaea or the many times that books were either left out or changed,
We could, but it'd be irrelevant. The folks at Nicaea could only effect what Christians did or said. We (Jews) maintained the integrity of the Hebrew Bible without paying any mind to the Christians.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: but I think there is something important here. No matter what version of The Bible that you have in your hands there is no possible way that you have the original,
Wrong. Factually wrong. The version we have is the original. Christian mileage may vary.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you have the very, physically original text, that is not, in fact, an edited copy of a copy?
As that's what the original means, the actual, physical original. The First Edition, so to speak.
Care to tell us where you're keeping it, so all of us can learn the wisdom of the uncopied, error-less version?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We (Jews) maintained the integrity of the Hebrew Bible without paying any mind to the Christians."
You assume your religion is correct, and theirs is wrong.
Haven't you read Blackblade's posts, for example, about his Mormon faith, and how he KNOWS, since he feels God, that it's right?
The Christians disagree with you. They claim you're wrong.
Which of you am I supposed to trust? Which of your contradictory beliefs is accurate?
Of course, you're still not using any evidence for the truth of your religion. It's perfectly valid for you to dismiss another person's religion, however.
But don't you see, since you dismiss the beliefs of the Christians, since you can so easily believe they're wrong, how I can dismiss your beliefs the same way?
From my perspective, your beliefs have no more hold on factual accuracy than Christian claims do from yours.
Can you understand that?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So Lisa, you would be among those who believe in the verbal inspiration and perfection of the Bible text in its original languages.
Yes and no. We've been through this here before. The Torah (Pentateuch) was dictated word by work to Moses, and what we have now, except for the possibility of a few places where the vowel "o" was written with or without a waw, is the same thing that Moses wrote down. [...]
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: but I think there is something important here. No matter what version of The Bible that you have in your hands there is no possible way that you have the original,
Wrong. Factually wrong. The version we have is the original. Christian mileage may vary.
So the fact that the ancient word count of the Torah differs from the modern word count, and that the middle letter changed from ancient times to now doesn't register as change? It does to me.
I admit that the Torah was copied far better than almost any other ancient text. But to claim it's completely error-free is an extraordinary claim that demands scrutiny.
No linkage, Lisa, but you have no trouble with telling people to research your positions, so I'll do the same.
GIYF (Google it yourself, friend)
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, the thing I still cannot fathom is the certainty in which you say things like:
"...the Torah was dictated word by word to Moses..."
"...written under the influence of prophecy..."
"...written under yet a lesser degree of perception of God..."
I cannot see any reason to take these statements as true, and no one has been able to explain to me why I should. Maybe these books were just written, without divine influence, and then claimed to be from God, or under the influence of prophecy, later on. And since many of your statements start with this type of assertion, with no admission to the possibility that it could be different, it invalidates, IMO, everything else in the post.
I can say that I believe (and am willing to argue and criticize other peoples' beliefs) that God did not dictate to Moses. But I can also concede that it is possible that God dictated to Moses. The possibility is there, even though in my eyes it is so remote as to be impossible. But I can admit that it is still there.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Surety you crave! Sauron gives none. If you sue for his clemency you must first do his bidding."
Control.
Created by animalistic, cunning humans to wield power over others.
Still just an opinion, but the whole book to me reeks of human nastiness. Carrot and stick methodologies, reactive answers instead of constructive answers, contradictions, and an easily manifested, social-based "us vs them" mentality.
Fear of others, fear of self, fear of God. Too much fear.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That sucks you feel that way, Earendil, because you're probably not seeing the big picture. The Book speaks of human nastiness, reward and punishment,and an "us-versus-them" mentality, but that pretty shallow interpretation of its message. I imagine you never read very much of it, and certainly were not receptive to it if you have.
quote: Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
[qb]Which of you am I supposed to trust? Which of your contradictory beliefs is accurate?[qb]
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That sucks you feel that way, Earendil, because you're probably not seeing the big picture. The Book speaks of human nastiness, reward and punishment,and an "us-versus-them" mentality, but that pretty shallow interpretation of its message. I imagine you never read very much of it, and certainly were not receptive to it if you have.
quote: Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
[qb]Which of you am I supposed to trust? Which of your contradictory beliefs is accurate?[qb]
"Just listen to your heart. That's what I do."
-Napoleon Dynamite
Oh, don't get me wrong, I probably should've added the plus side to the equation. There are some good principles contained therein. I just think people get lost in the details, and in the process hurt others and themselves.
I don't think it's shallow so much as taking a step back and looking at its message in the context of human history. We like myths, and we have a knack for blowing things out of proportion (nbc,cbs,thelatestgossip). I think we need to find considered reasons, not myths, as to how to act towards ourselves.
I'm coming from a big picture. From one dust speck to another, I don't think the Bible has cornered the market of Truth. That is what my heart tells me.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think so either. But I believe that there are many roads toward the truth, and the Bible is one of them.
As for its message in the course of human events, I think that has more to do with human events than with the message, if that makes any sense.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
It does make sense, and is one of the reasons I'm giving things such scrutiny. I'm more concerned with human nature, and how the Bible (or any other philosophy/"history") helps or hinders our race in that regard.
Subsequently, that means I'm also looking at the Bible as a cause of certain dysfunctions. Not because it doesn't contain certain truths, but because it contains very human er...patterns. That's the best I can describe it at this point. That's why I mentioned the fear, carrot & stick, etc. because I'm looking at these as...elements which are not constructive for the human mind and spirit.
And then I zoom the picture past the solar system, past the galaxies, and consider the vastness of it all and say "Surely we shouldn't be treating each other this way. Jesus, Buddha, etc spoke of peace, forgiveness, love."
Enter the contradictions. Enter sociology, anthropology, history, studies on man and mythology, and personal experience...You see where I'm coming from? I want the best for our race, and hitting each other with sticks because we're all interpreting things differently, isn't a constructive use of our time on this planet. I don't think throwing religion completely out is the answer, but neither do I think we should be allying ourselves under separate umbrellas.
What makes humanity its best? What doesn't? What is working, and what isn't?
These are the questions I'm trying to answer.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: And if Moses wasn't commanded to take fish on the ark...
I'm the only one that noticed this?
Good catch! Now how does it matter to an individual's life what Moses took, or did not take with him on the quantum dimensionally folded ark? It's like watching a movie and nitpicking all the "impossible" things that shouldn't have been able to happen. It's a story, it's a lesson, not a historical account. Does the lesson cause constructive results or destructive results? Was it created by human nature or by a divine source?
See? We're worrying about the car radio, when the engine is firing on one piston, the bumper is falling off, and the kids are fighting in the backseat! And yet we keep fighting over what's coming out of the radio!
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I wanted to address this earlier. The theory I'm going with for the moment is that, just as the bible says, there used to be different kinds of animals, and they were far fewer in number than what we consider separate species today, maybe in the thousands. Also, there was, as the Bible says, a firmament in the heavens, which probably blocked much of the harmful radiation that strikes us to day. Now the firmament came down, and also the earth pretty much fractured like on the cover of Fragile, by Yes. All this water was released from beneath the surface, and all the water fell from the surface, and the continents were shoved out, and the mountains and the deeps were formed (this implies that the earth was more smoothly spherical prior to the flood.) This is probably where all the fossils came from, because fossils generally do not form unless under certain extreme situations. Normally, everything rots and is eaten by scavengers.
Now the sun comes out for the first time, and something that was not possible before happens: a rainbow. A nice little detail that I'm happy was not missed. But then all the animals (including humans) become prone to mutations in their DNA because of all the solar radiation that strikes us. Our lives become shortened because of this, and natural selection starts to affect all the creatures, in such a way that all this speciation occurs, but without the problematic issue of an increase in complexity. De-evolution, rather.
And so here we are, with dinosaur bone being discovered in Montana with soft tissue still intact.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Ok, I wanted to address this earlier. The theory I'm going with for the moment is that, just as the bible says, there used to be different kinds of animals, and they were far fewer in number than what we consider separate species today, maybe in the thousands. Also, there was, as the Bible says, a firmament in the heavens, which probably blocked much of the harmful radiation that strikes us to day. Now the firmament came down, and also the earth pretty much fractured like on the cover of Fragile, by Yes. All this water was released from beneath the surface, and all the water fell from the surface, and the continents were shoved out, and the mountains and the deeps were formed (this implies that the earth was more smoothly spherical prior to the flood.) This is probably where all the fossils came from, because fossils generally do not form unless under certain extreme situations. Normally, everything rots and is eaten by scavengers.
Now the sun comes out for the first time, and something that was not possible before happens: a rainbow. A nice little detail that I'm happy was not missed. But then all the animals (including humans) become prone to mutations in their DNA because of all the solar radiation that strikes us. Our lives become shortened because of this, and natural selection starts to affect all the creatures, in such a way that all this speciation occurs, but without the problematic issue of an increase in complexity. De-evolution, rather.
And so here we are, with dinosaur bone being discovered in Montana with soft tissue still intact.
Very interesting! Perhaps further research into our genetic history might support this. Again, though, we have a tendency to take these interpretations and wreak dysfunction on ourselves and others.
Certainly, let's continue the discussion, but let's look forward as well. What can we do now, that might help us understand ourselves better and to avoid the pitfalls of our ancestors?
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: So the fact that the ancient word count of the Torah differs from the modern word count, and that the middle letter changed from ancient times to now doesn't register as change? It does to me.
Me too. But you're mistaken. The vav in the word gachon is the middle one of the abnormally sized letters in the Torah (big ones and small ones). Not of all the letters in the Torah. This is verifiably true. The idea that there are 600,000 letters in the Torah (not words, Morbo) is from the Zohar Chadash, and is a Kabbalistic idea that need not be taken literally, as that would require that the Torah was at one time almost twice the size that it is not. Nobody suggests that, whether they accept the Torah as being what it purports to be or not. I have no problem whatsoever saying that I don't take the Zohar Chadash literally.
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: I admit that the Torah was copied far better than almost any other ancient text. But to claim it's completely error-free is an extraordinary claim that demands scrutiny.
Like I said, there are full writings of "o" (and "i") and non-full writings of them. There are places where some copies say "vayehi" and others say "vayihiyu". There's no change in meaning between these variants. But those are the full extent of the versioning differences. It's the equivalent of "color" and "colour".
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: No linkage, Lisa, but you have no trouble with telling people to research your positions, so I'll do the same.
GIYF (Google it yourself, friend)
I didn't have to. I had the above link bookmarked, because you're hardly the first person to make these erronious claims.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Lisa, the thing I still cannot fathom is the certainty in which you say things like:
"...the Torah was dictated word by word to Moses..."
"...written under the influence of prophecy..."
"...written under yet a lesser degree of perception of God..."
I cannot see any reason to take these statements as true, and no one has been able to explain to me why I should.
I'm not sure if you're expecting or wanting a response to this. I acknowledge your rejection of these facts. Do I need to convince you that they are true? I mean, do you want me to try? I don't feel the need to, but if it's important to you, I can make a stab at it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Just listen to your heart. That's what I do."
My heart watches all the religions and admits to itself finally that to believe any one over the others is silly.
But what my heart says has nothing to do with truth. Neither does yours.
When listening to their heart alone, to decide the truth, people quite clearly come to false conclusions. How can I trust my own heart, my own beliefs alone, any better?
What I need, then, is evidence. And to act from a place of skepticism. To hold everything as "not guilty" of truth until shown otherwise.
My standard of evidence isn't perfect, and I notice myself accepting things without much evidence, because I'm human and there's vastly too many things to fact-check. But I can try, especially with the really big, really important things, such as my ultimate fate and how we came here.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I'm not even going to address most of your post.
But, just because I'm curious:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And so here we are, with dinosaur bone being discovered in Montana with soft tissue still intact.
Link?
Actually, I saw it on History channel, on the "States" show.
As for listening to one's heart, well, that wasn't exactly a logical proposition. Did you see who I was quoting there, Megabyte?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The Bible is a Perfect Text and Accurate History.
Anyone who insists that the Bible is a perfect text is themselves trying to render history inaccurate. The Bible has been mistranslated many times, sometimes deliberately, sometimes no doubt by accident. It's been edited for various reasons, including the changes made by King James who rendered it more sexist and derogatory towards women, and (in my opinion) many modern English language versions have removed layers of meaning, and in some cases beauty, from the earlier versions.
King James didn't change anything in the Bible. It's like Stephen King says about the movies based on his books. No matter what they do, the books are still there, unchanged. Same here. King James produced a flawed translation, but it didn't change the Bible, which remained untouched.
If you want to argue that the original Jewish bible was perfect and historically accurate, do so. But the original post did not limit discussion to your particular (more narrow) definition of what constitutes 'The Bible' and the subsequent discussion has clearly included the Christian Bible and translations of both. To dismiss every comment that refers to these as if they were off-topic is just being deliberately and unnecessarily obtuse. Are you joining the discussion, or just turning your nose up at it?
Posts: 2451 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to bring back the whole the-bible-says-pi-is-3 argument... oops, too late. Well, as long as we're here.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: That's just silly. You're assuming that this object had a thickness of 0. If it was 30 in circumference and 10 across, that means that means the walls were .7 cubits thick. With a cubit being about 18 inches (let's say), that's a little over 12.5 inches.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The old cavile about I Kings 7:23 and the value of pi, as some posters here have already shown, is based on a failure to comprehend what was really being described. Basins for the sanctuary most likely had curved lips. You would need an indication of the interior measurement to determine volume and capacity, and an indiction of the exterior measurement to determine how much space it would take up in the sanctuary.
I think you have it the wrong way around. Postulating a thickness actually makes the 10 -> 30 figures even worse. Unless you mean that the distance "from brim to brim" is the outer diameter and the "circumference" is the inner circumference, but that doesn't really make much sense.
That said, I'm with Tom on this one. There's only one significant figure here. (Not that anyone knew about significant figures in those times, afaik.)
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike: I think you have it the wrong way around. Postulating a thickness actually makes the 10 -> 30 figures even worse. Unless you mean that the distance "from brim to brim" is the outer diameter and the "circumference" is the inner circumference, but that doesn't really make much sense.
Why not? Because that's not the way you'd do it? I mean, never mind that doing it that way gives you nice, clean, easy numbers to remember for the diameter and circumference. No, they'd never do something like that.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You're criticizing the text without taking into account why it might have been written as it is. You're starting off wanting to find problems, and sure enough, you'll find them whether they're there or not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
It does to me. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
