The Funny Side of Religion

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about? I have pointed out that the measurements in the Biblical quote would be entirely consistent with a historian giving a description and following the practice of rounding stuff to the nearest unit. How does fantasy come into that?

As you should well know, it's the context. Someone walking five miles to the nearest town can afford to round up/down a quart mile for convenience. But for situations where accuracy is vital, such as, say, building a house, boat, planning a satelittes trajectory, laying carpet on your floor, you cannot afford to be off by 2.3%. To use the simple example of your floor, can you imagine simply using your inaccurate estimates, and leaving a clear line of concrete on the perimeter of your room? Can you imagine the pitch of our satellite orbit, being off by 8.28 degrees, leaving it to plunge into the atmosphere or fly off into space? The author was omitting vital information here.

I truely hope you do not work in engineering of any kind.

Coriolanus

Jakkass wrote: »

He doesn't come into whether or not the Israelites had the correct measurement of pi at all surely?

So God pretty much picked and chose the parts of the Bible that should be perfect? Number crunching wasn't worth the time but moral tracts were (excepting the parts with mass-murder, I guess they were wholly written by the imperfect Israelites).

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

It is unreasonable when your notion of 'inerrancy' is one not claimed by the Bible itself, not held by any Christian I have ever met.

Absolutely hilarious strawman.

Actually iirc it's held by Jakkass (I could be wrong in that) and it is held by a great many christians. If you're not one of them then good for you but you are not every christian and it's not a straw man to point out the flaws in a belief held by many christians, even if that belief is not held by PDN.

Now that we've acknowledged that the bible is only approximately the word of god and contains errors introduced by primitive tribesmen I think we should just treat it as any other book from the era. Sure maybe the whole disapproval of homosexuality was introduced by the tribesmen and isn't the will of god at all :eek:

PDN

liamw wrote: »

So where the hell does god come into it then?

Come into what? The historian used descriptive language and observed common conventions of such language. That is there whether you believe in God or not.

Rational theists and rational atheists should see this as a total non-issue. I can only see the most dogmatic and unbalanced of fundies on either side of the fence as seeing any problem here.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

This pi thing is hilarious :pac:

It means that the Israelites didn't have an accurate measure of pi. It doesn't reflect badly on either the Bible, or God.

Maybe they didn't have an accurate idea of morality either? The idea of the Israelites not having an accurate measure of pi is perfectly consistent with a bible being written by primitive tribesmen but not with a book inspired by god. The Israelites may not have known the value of pi but god does.

Flamed Diving

Should we make a new thread of this?

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

As you should well know, it's the context. Someone walking five miles to the nearest town can afford to round up/down a quart mile for convenience. But for situations where accuracy is vital, such as, say, building a house, boat, planning a satelittes trajectory, laying carpet on your floor, you cannot afford to be off by 2.3%. To use the simple example of your floor, can you imagine simply using your inaccurate estimates, and leaving a clear line of concrete on the perimeter of your room? Can you imagine the pitch of our satellite orbit, being off by 8.28 degrees, leaving it to plunge into the atmosphere or fly off into space? The author was omitting vital information here.

I truely hope you do not work in engineering of any kind.

And I truly hope you do not work in any field where an understanding of the English language is required.

The context of the biblical quote was that a historian was giving his readers an idea of the size and dimensions of the Temple which was destroyed by the Babylonians. No great accuracy is required.

He was not building a house, a boat, laying a carpet, or even launching a satellite. Anyone can see that, so I'm not sure why you want to bring satellites into it?

Btw, I don't work in engineering - but if I did I wouldn't use the Bible as a guide for launching satellites. LOL

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I wouldn't expect you to prefer to think anything else.

Perhaps it's a sign of god's omnipotence? He's able to create a circle where the ratio of the diameter to the circumference isn't π? Now that's a trick I'd like to see!

philologos

Nevore wrote: »

So God pretty much picked and chose the parts of the Bible that should be perfect? Number crunching wasn't worth the time but moral tracts were (excepting the parts with mass-murder, I guess they were wholly written by the imperfect Israelites).

There's nothing imperfect about the description of the Bible. It's not even claiming that pi is three, it's merely saying that the Israelites built something of circular shape with this dimension. This is a reflection of what knowledge historically the Israelites had of pi, not a reasonable grounds for calling either God, or the Bible imperfect in this case.

This is just mere pedantry, the kind of behaviour one would expect if one weren't really interested in assessing the truth of the Bible, but more interested in finding reasons to justify their stubborn attitude towards it.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

Btw, I don't work in engineering - but if I did I wouldn't use the Bible as a guide for launching satellites. LOL

I wouldn't put it past ya...

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually iirc it's held by Jakkass (I could be wrong in that) and it is held by a great many christians. If you're not one of them then good for you but you are not every christian and it's not a straw man to point out the flaws in a belief held by many christians, even if that belief is not held by PDN.

Now that we've acknowledged that the bible is only approximately the word of god and contains errors introduced by primitive tribesmen I think we should just treat it as any other book from the era. Sure maybe the whole disapproval of homosexuality was introduced by the tribesmen and isn't the will of god at all :eek:

I refuse to believe that you genuinely cannot understand the distinction between an 'error' and an 'approximation'. Or is that just semantics?

Flamed Diving wrote:

Should we make a new thread of this?

Why? It's funnier by far than anything else in the thread.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

There's nothing imperfect about the description of the Bible. It's not even claiming that pi is three, it's merely saying that the Israelites built something of circular shape with this dimension. This is a reflection of what knowledge historically the Israelites had of pi, not a reasonable grounds for calling either God, or the Bible imperfect in this case.

Again, if you're going to use the argument that the Israelites historically did not have an accurate value of pi that calls the entire validity of the bible into question. They are supposed to be divinely inspired so any information that was not available to the Israelites under normal circumstances is completely irrelevant. They are supposed to be inspired by god to whom all information is available.

If they got this wrong because they didn't know any better, who's to say god inspired any part of the bible? Maybe they frown on homosexuality or say Jesus raised from the dead because they knew no better?

robindch

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Should we make a new thread of this?

Nope

As PDN says, I think this π debate (especially the fine contributions from the religious side) are adding enormously to the spirit of this thread.

liamw

PDN wrote: »

Come into what? The historian used descriptive language and observed common conventions of such language. That is there whether you believe in God or not.

Rational theists and rational atheists should see this as a total non-issue. I can only see the most dogmatic and unbalanced of fundies on either side of the fence as seeing any problem here.

Jakkass wrote: »

There's nothing imperfect about the description of the Bible. It's not even claiming that pi is three, it's merely saying that the Israelites built something of circular shape with this dimension. This is a reflection of what knowledge historically the Israelites had of pi, not a reasonable grounds for calling either God, or the Bible imperfect in this case.

This is just mere pedantry, the kind of behaviour one would expect if one weren't really interested in assessing the truth of the Bible, but more interested in finding reasons to excuse themselves.

So basically, the Bible isn't actually God's word then. Rather, it's an interpretation of God's word through the eyes of an historian at the time?

Or, are certain parts of the Bible directly God's word and certain parts indirectly God's word, or are certain parts nothing to do with God at all?

How do you discern which parts are true or not then, if certain parts are blatently written by the fallible human being?

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I refuse to believe that you genuinely cannot understand the distinction between an 'error' and an 'approximation'. Or is that just semantics?

Well yeah it is. It gives exact measurements, nowhere does it say approximately. If it were any other book I would have no problem with it whatsoever but many people's lives are effected by this book because of the apparent authority vested in it by the creator of the universe. If the book can't even get pi right, why should I let it tell me who I can marry or how badly I can beat my slaves?

philologos

Sam Vimes: This book is testifying to a historical event. The Israelites used this measurement to construct a certain building. Nowhere does it say that this was the most accurate measurement ever made.

Also, just because God revealed certain things to them, does not mean that he also revealed a perfect definition of pi to them.

I believe that this did historically happen, and the Bible is correct in documenting this historical event.

This merely says that the Israelites didn't have a perfect definition of pi, it doesn't say that the Bible or God are wrong.

Typical pedantry. I don't see how this strengthens the case for dismissing the Bible at all! Rather as PDN has pointed out, it could be seen as something that reinforces it's historicity considering that many cultures of their time did this in constructing buildings.

Coriolanus

Jakkass wrote: »

There's nothing imperfect about the description of the Bible. It's not even claiming that pi is three, it's merely saying that the Israelites built something of circular shape with this dimension. This is a reflection of what knowledge historically the Israelites had of pi, not a reasonable grounds for calling either God, or the Bible imperfect in this case.

This is just mere pedantry, the kind of behaviour one would expect if one weren't really interested in assessing the truth of the Bible, but more interested in finding reasons to excuse themselves.

No, it's not pedantry. I'm quite happy to concede that the Bible wasn't trying to act as an authority on mathematical matters in the passage in question. It is a reflection of what knowledge the Israelites had, and as far as I'm concerned that's fine.
What's not fine is insisting that other parts of the Bible are absolutely true and not subject to the limitations of what the Israelites knew. Jesus had to have been resurrected, because, well, it says so in the Bible. It wasn't any of a number of medical malaises that fool even relatively modern doctors into thinking a given patient is dead, or it wasn't a grand sleight of hand by an itinerant fraudster, because, well, the Bible says he was resurrected on the third day.
I'm not saying that the Bible is entirely wrong, but parts of it are, and the only logical position is to look at the entirety with a skeptical eye. If one part of it can be wrong, any other part of it can be too.
Edit: Others got there first, but yeah...

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If they got this wrong because they didn't know any better, who's to say god inspired any part of the bible? Maybe they frown on homosexuality or say Jesus raised from the dead because they knew no better?

But the whole point is that they didn't get pi wrong, because they never stated any value for pi.

The only people who think so are those who ignore the context sufficiently to try to treat an approximate description of a religious place of worship as if it were a mathematical textbook or somehow think the Israelites were designing a blueprint to launch a satellite. :pac:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Also, just because God revealed certain things to them, does not mean that he also revealed a perfect definition of pi to them.

Maybe it means he did not reveal absolute objective morality to them and that is also an approximation using only information available to the primitive Israelites?

Flamed Diving

A point, if I may:

The earliest evidenced conscious use of an accurate approximation for the length of a circumference with respect to its radius is of 3+1/7 in the designs of the Old Kingdom pyramids in Egypt.

The Old Kingdom is most commonly regarded as spanning the period of time when Egypt was ruled by the Third Dynasty through to the Sixth Dynasty (2686 BC – 2134 BC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#History

So, it would appear that the Egyptians had an accurate knowledge of pi as far back as the third millennium BC. It is my understanding that God's chosen people, the Israelites, were slaves in Egypt ,for some time. Now, because slavery was just a form of hired labour back then (remember guys?), then surely some members of God's chosen tribe might have encountered this magical number along the way.

I'm looking forward to the hand waving here.

philologos

Nevore wrote: »

No, it's not pedantry. I'm quite happy to concede that the Bible wasn't trying to act as an authority on mathematical matters in the passage in question. It is a reflection of what knowledge the Israelites had, and as far as I'm concerned that's fine.
What's not fine is insisting that other parts of the Bible are absolutely true and not subject to the limitations of what the Israelites knew. Jesus had to have been resurrected, because, well, it says so in the Bible. It wasn't any of a number of medical malaises that fool even relatively modern doctors into thinking a given patient is dead, or it wasn't a grand sleight of hand by an itinerant fraudster, because, well, the Bible says he was resurrected on the third day.
I'm not saying that the Bible is entirely wrong, but parts of it are, and the only logical position is to look at the entirety with a skeptical eye. If one part of it can be wrong, any other part of it can be too.
Edit: Others got there first, but yeah...

Yes it is, it's one of the most pedantic things I've ever seen on these fora.

Nobody said that this part of the Bible isn't true. It's an historical reflection of what happened. The issue doesn't lie with the Bible, it lies with what the Bible is describing. I.E The Israelites and their measurements.

The argument isn't about the Bible being wrong in describing this event at all. That's where the pedantry lies, if you didn't get that then I can see why you might continue arguing this position.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well yeah it is. It gives exact measurements, nowhere does it say approximately. If it were any other book I would have no problem with it whatsoever but many people's lives are effected by this book because of the apparent authority vested in it by the creator of the universe. If the book can't even get pi right, why should I let it tell me who I can marry or how badly I can beat my slaves?

The bold-faced bit says it all, doesn't it? You would have no difficulty accepting that any other book uses language in a normal way, but you choose to misinterpret the Bible when it uses language in a normal way because you don't like the way it affects other people's lives - EVEN THOUGH THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

Your admission is absolutely stunning.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

But the whole point is that they didn't get pi wrong, because they never stated any value for pi.

The only people who think so are those who ignore the context sufficiently to try to treat an approximate description of a religious place of worship as if it were a mathematical textbook or somehow think the Israelites were designing a blueprint to launch a satellite. :pac:

I want to treat the book in the context of being inspired by the perfect creator of the universe. If you want to treat it in the context of primitive Israelites approximating using only their primitive knowledge I'm all for it but in that context I have no more motivation to take the word of the bible to heart than I do any other book written by flawed humans 2000 years ago.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Maybe it means he did not reveal absolute objective morality to them and that is also an approximation using only information available to the primitive Israelites?

Ah Sam. It does nothing of the sort. It's typical pedantry. Thank you for giving me something entertaining to read!

This does zero credibility to your argument.

A reflection of Israel's knowledge of mathematics does nothing to the idea of divine revelation.

The Bible is both a human book, in that it reflects human understanding as well as a divine text.

Flamed Diving: No the Israelites were oppressed and abused in Egypt. The Israelites had standards of human rights which the Egyptians never had, but let's not get into that argument again!

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

The bold-faced bit says it all, doesn't it? You would have no difficulty accepting that any other book uses language in a normal way, but you choose to misinterpret the Bible when it uses language in a normal way because you don't like the way it affects other people's lives - EVEN THOUGH THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

Your admission is absolutely stunning.

I didn't misinterpret the bible, I interpreted it exactly as it was written. I hold the bible to higher standards than I do other books because no one is threatening that I will burn for eternity if I do not accept other books as the inspired word of god. If their value for pi was the inaccurate value available to the primitive Israelites, why should I believe that any other part of the bible is the perfect word of god and not just primitive Israelites writing down their own opinions as if they were divinely inspired?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Flamed Diving: No the Israelites were oppressed and abused in Egypt. The Israelites had standards of human rights which the Egyptians never had, but let's not get into that argument again!

So therefore they would have encountered the accurate value of pi, as stated in the links provided. So why the ignorance of pi in the Bible?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well yeah it is. It gives exact measurements, nowhere does it say approximately.

And where does it say 'exactly'?

You are now trying to have your cake and eat it. You insist the figures can't be approximate because it doesn't say 'approximate'. But, by the same reasoning, they can't be exact because it doesn't say 'exactly'.

Come on! Use a bit of logic.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Ah Sam. It does nothing of the sort. It's typical pedantry. Thank you for giving me something entertaining to read!

This does zero credibility to your argument.

A reflection of Israel's knowledge of mathematics does nothing to the idea of divine revelation.

The Bible is both a human book, in that it reflects human understanding as well as a divine text.

So which is it? Is it the parts that we know are wrong and the parts that we no longer agree with such as slavery that are written by flawed humans and only the parts that we agree with or that have not yet been proven false that are the perfect word of god?

This book asks me to accept it as the divinely inspired word of god and shape my life around its teachings but if it appears for all the world to have been written by primitive Israelites with no access to any knowledge that was not available at the time, why should I?

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

And where does it say 'exactly'?

It says ten cubits, not approximately ten cubits. The only reason to assume that it is meant approximately is that we know that it cannot possibly have been ten cubits. So maybe all those moral laws are only meant approximately? They don't say exactly after all

philologos

Sam: It's not wrong. It's providing a historical description of what happened.

You seem to be incapable of understanding this so let me help you out.

If I write in a book that young Sam Vimes when doing his maths thought that 2 + 2 = 3 and this was a true event. Does this mean that I am wrong for writing it, or does this mean that Sam Vimes had his maths wrong?

Likewise, if the author of 1 Kings writes that the Israelites had this measurement on a building. Does this mean that the author of 1 Kings is wrong, or does it mean that the Israelites had inaccurate measurements?