quote:Originally posted by enjeeo: 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?
Since the vast majority of the quibbles have been aimed at the Hebrew Bible, I have no problem sticking with that.
Furthermore, I stipulate that the Christian additions are both imperfect and inaccurate, so for me, the question devolves to the remaining part, which is all I care about in the first place.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: 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.
Perhaps they would. But as far as I can tell there's no indication that the circumference would be measured on the inside. "From brim to brim" could certainly be interpreted either way, but just plain "circumference" is a stretch. If you see such an explicit mention as unnecessary, that's cool.
You were thinking of the outer diameter and inner circumference, right? Just trying to keep you honest here. Because Ron had it the wrong way around.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: 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.
I am not criticizing the text at all. If I wanted to do that I'd do some research and choose something a little more substantial than a casual measurement that I, after all, don't see any problem with anyway. I was just pointing out the error in Ron's logic that it appeared you were making as well (again, if you honestly were thinking about it the other way around, then I apologize).
I realize you're somewhat under fire in this thread, and that can be a difficult position. It can be hard to keep track of all the details of all the positions you're arguing against. I just want to point out that your last paragraph (especially the last sentence) does not apply to me or my position on this topic. Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: 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.
Perhaps they would. But as far as I can tell there's no indication that the circumference would be measured on the inside. "From brim to brim" could certainly be interpreted either way, but just plain "circumference" is a stretch. If you see such an explicit mention as unnecessary, that's cool.
Dude, you try making it based on the specs 30 around and 10 across without it being the way I'm reading it. It can't be done. Pi is not equal to 3, and anyone who has ever built something circular knows it.
quote:Originally posted by Mike: You were thinking of the outer diameter and inner circumference, right? Just trying to keep you honest here. Because Ron had it the wrong way around.
Yes. That's why I said it's the thickness of the walls. I didn't get the rim thing, unless it's a rim pointing inwards, which seems like it might be hard to use.
quote:Originally posted by Mike:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: 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.
I am not criticizing the text at all. If I wanted to do that I'd do some research and choose something a little more substantial than a casual measurement that I, after all, don't see any problem with anyway. I was just pointing out the error in Ron's logic that it appeared you were making as well (again, if you honestly were thinking about it the other way around, then I apologize).
I realize you're somewhat under fire in this thread, and that can be a difficult position. It can be hard to keep track of all the details of all the positions you're arguing against. I just want to point out that your last paragraph (especially the last sentence) does not apply to me or my position on this topic.
Fair enough. I withdraw it in your case. I maintain it as a general comment about many of the people in this thread, though. And many elsewhere as well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dude, you try making it based on the specs 30 around and 10 across without it being the way I'm reading it. It can't be done. Pi is not equal to 3, and anyone who has ever built something circular knows it.
Again, it's entirely possible that the precise dimensions just weren't relevant to the text.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dude, you try making it based on the specs 30 around and 10 across without it being the way I'm reading it. It can't be done. Pi is not equal to 3, and anyone who has ever built something circular knows it.
Again, it's entirely possible that the precise dimensions just weren't relevant to the text.
That makes no sense. These were building specs. They were relevant as hell. We're talking about an actual physical object. One that would have to be rebuilt if it got damaged or destroyed.
You're making the mistake of looking at this as a purely religious text. Such categories didn't exist back then.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
