pi=3.0 (according to the bible)

Originally posted by Ironside

Except that science is not a belief, you either accept it or not.

Saying "I believe in Evolution" puts science on the same level as religion, which it is not.

Evolution is merely still a theory, not a law. Until it is 100% proven, it is something you believe.


GRAVITY IS A THEORY
ATOMS ARE A THEORY
RELATIVITY IS A THEORY
THE EARTH IS ROUND IS A THEORY

So, jump off a tall building, then call Japan and tell them we didn't nuke them, while explaining how wrong Einstein was, while hoping to land on a flat Earth.

Originally posted by Lightstorm

Originally posted by Ironside

Except that science is not a belief, you either accept it or not.

Saying "I believe in Evolution" puts science on the same level as religion, which it is not.

Evolution is merely still a theory, not a law. Until it is 100% proven, it is something you believe.

GRAVITY IS A THEORY
ATOMS ARE A THEORY
RELATIVITY IS A THEORY
THE EARTH IS ROUND IS A THEORY

So, jump off a tall building, then call Japan and tell them we didn't nuke them, while explaining how wrong Einstein was, while hoping to land on a flat Earth.

i don't see your point

all those things are theories, so why attack someone for stating thus.

and how has evolution got anything to do with this argument in the first place

as stated near the start of the topic, its all about interpretation, it can b interpreted as pi being given as 3, which is totally inaccurate

or interpreted as a number closer to pi than anything we had before the 1900s

seems the 'evidence' is a bit inconclusive....

owzitgarn, it can't really be inerpreted as something close to pi because to do so you'd have to bend the bible to fit that way. you're actually manipulating the text to make it seem as such

my entire point is: bible = ok for spirituality, whatever, it's your choice
but it's not ok for science, math, and it's kind of hit or miss on history

As has been stated at least several dozen times in this and other forums, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Please see Nygdan's post Some Important Things to Keep in Mind at the top of this forum to prevent redundancy.

Originally posted by Amenti
Doesn’t anyone think this is nothing if not an astounding coincidence that the word “circumference” has the alphanumerical value of the circumference of this thing that shows pi 15 times better than the 22/7 or the 3.14? can we agree on that?

what about the "remez", (the hebrew notation to hint of something deeper?) the clue to treat the word as a mathematical formula? are you so sure that this is all just a silly coincedence from those sill Hebrews who built the monument of sacred geometry (the temple)

to say the bible was simply in error here is at the very least a matter "one side of the story" and is contested by very intelligent Jews and Christians alike

Originally posted by Amenti


what about the "remez", (the hebrew notation to hint of something deeper?) the clue to treat the word as a mathematical formula? are you so sure that this is all just a silly coincedence from those sill Hebrews who built the monument of sacred geometry (the temple)

to say the bible was simply in error here is at the very least a matter "one side of the story" and is contested by very intelligent Jews and Christians alike

They threw ancient history away, a long time ago. According to the originators, Grecians couldn't write, after that, it was all down hill from there. Of course, it was proven that the Greeks could write but it was too late to back track, so today, we have to sit quietly, like good little historians, and watch while the ancient texts prove themselves, archaeologically and about a hundred other ways, and not mention a peep about it (or we're backwards idiots that believe in polygamy and so forth). And of course, there's similar amazing examples in other ancient texts but we can't give them credit either because they believed in gods in flying machines (Mahabharata) and the Eye of Ra flying around, seeking out people through solid rock (Legend of the Destruction of Mankind), and guards with glowing eyes that shot out death rays (Epic of Gilgamesh), and floating, hovering temples that roared, glowed, and had doors that "snatch" a man (Enki and the World Order), and so on.

Into the garbage it all goes! Cause well, the ancient people were idiots, proof of that is they thought pi=3.0 (or maybe it's just the hebrews that were dumb but the rest of them were rocket scientists!! Shh, don't mention the fact the high priests had to wear linen (as directed) of a certain variety to keep from being electrocuted by the furniture in the Holy of Holies.

Sigh. And so, we return to the dark ages disguised as the enlightened times, in which, most of our ancient history is a joke for the really smart people.

Thats a lie, or an ignorant statement...

The bowl was as thick as a handsbreadth, IT SAYS SO IN THE VERSE, so the Bible has the correct pi.

This one was debunked SO LONG AGO, I can't believe they still try to use it. But it makes sense so they only have about 6 major lies they try to use, if they ever make up something else we will be the first to ehar it.

Thats a lie, or an ignorant statement...

The bowl was as thick as a handsbreadth, IT SAYS SO IN THE VERSE, so the Bible has the correct pi.

This one was debunked SO LONG AGO, I can't believe they still try to use it. But it makes sense so they only have about 6 major lies they try to use, if they ever make up something else we will be the first to ehar it.

How on earth did you get something like that out of that verse it says nothing about pi at all, someone has probibly posted this already, but this is what the verse actualy says (note: this will probibly differ in wording for different translations of the bible):

23Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.

24Under its brim gourds went around encircling it ten to a cubit, completely surrounding the sea; the gourds were in two rows, cast with the rest.

25It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east; and the sea was set on top of them, and all their rear parts turned inward.

26It was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom; it could hold two thousand baths.

If someone could explain to me how that tells us pi=3.00000. Again im sorry if someone has posted this.

-fm

funky monk, it gives us a way to derive pi. the word "pi" is obviously not mentioned, but the ratio that we name pi can be figured out to equal 3 in this circumstance.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Thats a lie, or an ignorant statement...

The bowl was as thick as a handsbreadth, IT SAYS SO IN THE VERSE, so the Bible has the correct pi.

This one was debunked SO LONG AGO, I can't believe they still try to use it. But it makes sense so they only have about 6 major lies they try to use, if they ever make up something else we will be the first to ehar it.

I dont see your point, that doesnt seem to validate or debunk anything here Its clear you dont see mine either, please explain how the alpha numeric point was debunked and or link me to the thread, my guess is whatever was used to "debunk" it there has already been tried here and I dont think a truley objective person would think this is cler cut at all, will you tell me its not just a little weird that the hebrew word used here for circumferance alphanumerically adds to pi to the freaking FIFTHEENTH decimel point! and that it seems to prompting the reader to treat this verse as an equasion. wont you agree its a serious coincedence considering that we know these builders were sacred geometry freakazoids. Im telling you guys, you shouldnt use with this one as your ceterpiece, its likley to burn you.

i miss my edit button. I am such a bad speller.

Hi

Pi, as its currently defined by our mathematical systems, is a never-ending numeral it seems.

But, as our mathematical system is based entirely upon the Cartesian system (which is a linear system) - isn't this unending numeral analogous to trying to fit a square peg into a round hole ?

And what kind of picture does someone incessantly atempting to insert a square peg into a round hole conjur ?

I realize this thread is about the numerical value someone interpreted from a 'bible', so may be somewhat off-topic - but the esoteric defines Pi as 3.1415 (HPB, The Secret Doctrine) and her numeral is easily substantiated.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by effinlunatic]

Originally posted by effinlunatic
Hi

Pi, as its currently defined by our mathematical systems, is a never-ending numeral it seems.

But, as our mathematical system is based entirely upon the Cartesian system (which is a linear system) - isn't this unending numeral analogous to trying to fit a square peg into a round hole ?

are you saying that the idea of simply ADDING up the numbers to come to its sum total, regarding the alphanumerical letters in a word (which is a very accepted and uncontested tradition), is a product of modern system and therefore irrelevant?
or are you saying that yes, you can come to the form of pi with this formula but its irrelevant because pi as a linear number is a new way to express this geometrical constant?

Originally posted by Amenti
are you saying that the idea of simply ADDING up the numbers to come to its sum total, regarding the alphanumerical letters in a word (which is a very accepted and uncontested tradition), is a product of modern system and therefore irrelevant?
or are you saying that yes, you can come to the form of pi with this formula but its irrelevant because pi as a linear number is a new way to express this geometrical constant?

I said neither of these things and I do not class anything as 'irrelevant'.

I noticed after I posted that, that you probably weren't referring to the arguments here..my bad

btw did my posting window always have spell check? I just noticed this.

I was perusing the ATS site the other night and came across this thread about the Bible "getting pi wrong". Not normally being bothered to add to stupid issues like this it was only the even stupider arguments coming from the Bible`s "defenders" which forced me to sign up and contribute.
It makes me quite angry to see people on both sides twisting things to suit themselves - this fantasy about the numerology is the real piece de resistance.

A careful reading of the passage tells us that the diameter from brim to brim of the laver or sea was 10 cubits, a cubit being of course approx 1.5 feet. It also tells us that the brim was a handbreadth (about 5 or 6 hands to a cubit) thick and that the circumference was 30 cubits. It also tells us it was 5 cubits deep and could hold 2000 baths (1 bath roughly 6 gallons).

A brim measure of 30 cubits - lets say the line was placed either halfway across the brim as it went round or on the inner lip - using the known value of pi gives us a diameter equating exactly to 10 cubits less 2 hands (accurate to approx 1 inch which ain`t bad).
And if one then calculates the volume one finds that it equates to exactly the measure given - check it.

Therefore those who have "proved" God not to exist because the Bible got pi wrong, and those who have proved he exists by inventing reactionary fallacies are both, quite frankly, talking through their backsides. The measurements and equations are correct as they are written. All one has to do is actually read what is said and have a brain which is not filled with tosh.

Somebody already said this by the way but nobody listened.

Originally posted by funky monk

26It was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom; it could hold two thousand baths.

Thank you for posting the verse that says the RIM WAS AS WIDE AS A HANDS BREADTH...

As I said this lie was debunked LONG LONG AGO, but they keep trying to put out the same lies over and over, like opiotrix the so called bird dinosaur that was a proven hoax, or the proven hoax or the embryos, and the Hoax humans have Gills slits, LIES LIES LIES and all proven to be so.

But until the evolutionist find another lie for their religion to pass on they will use all the old ones already disprovedmany times over...

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
As I said this lie was debunked LONG LONG AGO, but they keep trying to put out the same lies over and over, like opiotrix the so called bird dinosaur that was a proven hoax,

um... do you mean Archaeopteryx? it actually wasn't a hoax, wikipedia has a sourced entry on it

Beginning in 1985, a group including astronomer Fred Hoyle and physicist Lee Spetner published a series of papers claiming that the feathers on the Berlin and London specimens of Archaeopteryx were forged.[29][30][31][32] Their claims were repudiated by Alan J. Charig and others at the British Museum of Natural History.[33] Most of their evidence for a forgery was based on unfamiliarity with the processes of lithification; for example, they proposed that based on the difference in texture associated with the feathers, feather impressions were applied to a thin layer of cement,[30] without realizing that feathers themselves would have caused a textural difference.[33] They also expressed disbelief that slabs would split so smoothly, or that one half of a slab containing fossils would have good preservation, but not the counterslab.[31][29] These, though, are common properties of Solnhofen fossils because the dead animals would fall onto hardened surfaces which would form a natural plane for the future slabs to split along, leaving the bulk of the fossil on one side and little on the other.[33] They also misinterpreted the fossils, claiming that the tail was forged as one large feather,[30] when this is visibly not the case.[33] In addition, they claimed that the other specimens of Archaeopteryx known at the time did not have feathers,[30][29] which is untrue; the Maxberg and Eichstätt specimens have obvious feathers.[33] Finally, the motives they suggested for a forgery are not strong, and contradictory; one is that Richard Owen wanted to forge evidence in support of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is unlikely given Owen's views toward Darwin and his theory. The other is that Owen wanted to set a trap for Darwin, hoping the latter would support the fossils so Owen could discredit him with the forgery; this is unlikely because Owen himself wrote a detailed paper on the London specimen, so such an action would certainly backfire.[23]

en.wikipedia.org...

or the proven hoax

um.. this one has nothing attached to it, what proven hoax are you talking about? is it the recent fossil faerie hoax? i liked that one, it amused me.

or the embryos

i'm sorry, but embryos are quite real

, and the Hoax humans have Gills slits, LIES LIES LIES and all proven to be so.

um, i've never heard the humans have gill slits thing... unless you're talking about in the development of the fetus, that one is actually quite real

i think you should look into a little thing called science

But until the evolutionist find another lie for their religion to pass on they will use all the old ones already disprovedmany times over...

nobody is an "evolutionist"
it isn't a religion
and it contains no lies

show me one lie of modern evolutionary biology and i will believe you, show me one hoax that a reputable modern evolutionary biologist would not admit to and i will believe you.

show me one lie of modern evolutionary biology and i will believe you, show me one hoax that a reputable modern evolutionary biologist would not admit to and i will believe you.

I realize this thread is a couple years old, but you asked to be shown one lie of modern evolutionary biology, and one hoax that a reputable modern evolutionary biologist would not admit to. Maybe Richard Dawkins isn't a biologist, but he is a reputable evolutionist who has spent his life arguing against creationism. This youtube link shows that he will not admit there is no evidence of information ever being introduced into the genome.

www.youtube.com...

Let me explain the significance of this:
All the information required to form our bodies can be found in our DNA (the genome). Darwin had no knowledge of the presence of DNA in the cell. For the theory of evolution to be true, it would have to be based on the introduction of new information into an species' DNA. New species would have to naturally receive new information into their DNA in order to form, for example, a tail, or fingers. What is taught by natural selection is actually the opposite. As a very simplified example, consider dogs with different hair lengths. There are many breeds of dogs, yet all dogs are still dogs. Through natural selection, some dogs have long hair, some have short hair. Let's say a capital 'H' represents long hair and a lower case 'h' represents short hair (from studying genes in junior high, remember?). Now assume the very first male dog had 'Hh' genes and bred with the first female dog, also with 'Hh' genes. The 'HH' offspring survived farther away from the equator because their long hair kept them alive in the cold. Similarly, the 'hh' offspring survived better closer to the equator because their short hair kept them cool. This is a LOSS of information FROM the DNA, not an introduction into the DNA, as would have to be true to support the theory of evolution. Short hair dogs with only 'hh' genes will never evolve on their own to have long hair, because the information is no longer in their genes.

Many people think the theory of evolution is proven fact. A theory, by definition, is not a fact. Why do people think they must interpret the Bible to fits man's theories, instead of interpreting man's observations to fit the Bible? If you believe some of the Bible and allow yourself to believe in evolution, you might as well not believe the Bible at all. Take it or leave it, but don't compromise it. As far as pi=3, that has been sufficiently explained.