pi=3.0 (according to the bible)

reply to post by adventureaddict


I believe that the Bible is Gods word written through man. I also believe that nature is Gods word revealed through creation. Man can make mistakes about his observation of both the natural world and scriptures.

I'm certian that you don't believe you have EVERYTHING right about what the Bible says on every single subject. In fact there are most likley a lot of hidden meanings in there that no one has figured out yet. I don't think its essential that everyone agrees on what the Bible says about every point in order to be accepted by God.

By the way 2 different books or whatever they're called describe the same exact bowl with same measurements, but the other says that the bowl's volume was 2000 bat-units and the other claims the bowl's volume was 3000 bat-units. Also the other one says that the bowl had like pictures of pumpkins on the side while the other says that the bowl had pictures of oxes on the side.

They should really rename the old testament.

"Tales of the desert people" would be rather descriptive



[edit on 8-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
By the way 2 different books or whatever they're called describe the same exact bowl with same measurements, but the other says that the bowl's volume was 2000 bat-units and the other claims the bowl's volume was 3000 bat-units. Also the other one says that the bowl had like pictures of pumpkins on the side while the other says that the bowl had pictures of oxes on the side.

They should really rename the old testament.

"Tales of the desert people" would be rather descriptive

[edit on 8-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Ok, so you can't refute that the Bible was indeed correct. Yet you bring up something about the bowls having different pictures on them. This is described in "books or whatever they're called"?

Anyway, I'll get back on topic:

Is the verse mathematically incorrect using the measurements and value of the measurements described? NO

Is the verse mathematically correct to a couple decimal points? NO

Originally posted by Amenti

1) The Bible is reliable.

It's a bit more like the Curate's egg, to be honest. Parts of it are reliable and parts of it are absolute bunkum.
Trying to work out which is which is the tricky part (apart from the obviously made-up, imaginary friend parts).

reply to post by B.A.C.


What? I just brought up another issue that is quite related to this pi stuff, as it's about the same bowl.

Passages in question for the size of the bowl are 1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5

The stuff about pumpkins and oxen is nearby. Also these two accounts give rather different locations for the 2 pillars that were called "jak and something" ..or something

Like The desert people strike back (the new testament), also The tales of the desert people (the old testament) is full of contradictions..

[edit on 8-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

It seems that there are still Biblical literalists on ATS and there are still creationists. So, to attack the source of Biblical literalist creationism, does pi=3.0?

Originally posted by earth2

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Can you please try to get another hobby rather than try to discredit the Bible day in and day out? I truly don't understand your fascination by something which you keep saying is false and meaningless...

What makes anything you do better? Because you say so.

Isn't that the typical creationist logic?

Originally posted by adventureaddict

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.

That video of Richard Dawkins is a creationist hoax and has been debunked a looooong time ago. I can't believe you even posted that video. Here's Richard Dawkins' response himself.

www.youtube.com...

And no pi = 3 has not been explained. Just more creationist dishonesty.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Firepac]

Here is the Very Very Simple answer....

Written in "The Gospel of Thomas" (Rejected by the Roman Church ???) Quote;

39. Jesus said,

“The Pharisees and the Scribes
have taken The Keys of Knowledge
and Hidden Them.


They themselves have NOT entered,
nor have they allowed to enter
those who wish to.


You, however, be as wise as serpents
and as innocent as doves.”

The bible was written by Scribes....

The bible is NOT the Word of God but is the human interpretation regarding/about God and the WORD of God which is NOT the bible...

And the Scribes in the "Roman church" Corrupted these writings further....

It was the Scribes in the "Roman church" who did this under the Control of the "Roman Government"....

The "church of England" as well as the other denominations willingly adopted these Corruptions also!

[edit on 23-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

Back in Napoleon's day, the French OFFICIAL value for PI was "ABOUT THREE" !!!!

It's listed in the Guinness Book of Records as "the most inaccurate version of pi ever recorded".

I didn't think they knew about PI in biblical times? I thought they were still dealing with cuibits and such.

reply to post by babybunnies


Found on the net...

Even though the rough value of Pi was known long before his time, the first theoretical calculation seems to have been carried out by Archimedes of Syracuse (287-212 BC).

www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk...

Read more: What is Pi? Who discovered it? How did they find out that number has almost infinite digits?

www.answerbag.com...

Also...

The earliest known written records to throw light on the subject are the Susa mathematical tablets, written in cuneiform about 2000 B.C., and discovered in the 1930s at the site of the ancient city of Susa (now known as Shush, Iran, but try to keep it quiet). At least one Babylonian tablet states that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the perimeter of an inscribed hexagon is (in modern notation) 1:0.96, implying a value of p=3.125, a value that is too small by about half a percent. But despite this one close approximation, it seems that the usual value in ancient Mesopotamia was the much cruder value p=3, too small by about 4.5%

www.straightdope.com...

[edit on 23-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by Amenti


Just Curious...

Which Cubit are you referring to ? As there are many different Cubits...

Here are just a few of the many different Cubits...

en.wikipedia.org...

a. The Royal Cubit between 20.6 and 20.64 inches.
b. The Sumerian Cubit 20.4 inches
c. The Roman Cubit 17.5 inches
d. The Babylonian Cubit 15/16ths of the Royal Cubit

Or was it "The Cubit according to the Angel" which is none of the above nor was it Hebrew or any measurement of the human species ???

"The Cubit according to the Angel" is one Royal square unit of the "Partition Map" of the Soul....

Creationists aren't rational, so don't bother trying to convince them of things using logic.. It'd be like trying to teach a fish how to breathe out of water -- it just isn't possible.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


So because a Gnostic, who was in an anti-establishment movement, says the establishment is lying, the establishment is lying.

That's like finding a writing from ATS in the year 3000 and saying: "Look, this guy who found no mainstream acceptance said that the Queen of England is a Reptillian, IT MUST BE TRUE!"

Aside from that, I believe that the passage you're quoting refers to the scribes and pharisees of the time of Jesus, not the ones that preceded him.

reply to post by babybunnies


I'm merely pointing out that, if the Bible is the true literal word of god as many creationists imply, than either pi=3 or the Bible is wrong.

Here is the scary part.

There is more evidence that supports 911 being an inside job than evidence the Bible is all true yet most still want to accept the official 911 story.

I guess I can see why most christians watch FOX and believe the official 911 story.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

You wrote.... Quote;

Aside from that, I believe that the passage you're quoting refers to the scribes and pharisees of the time of Jesus, not the ones that preceded him.

Never assume...

The church of Rome would have you believe this about the Pharisees... LOL

I am NOT a "Gnostic" nor do I ascribe to any religion... but only make reference to religious writings from time to time.

Most churches of the "human species" today, would have me burnt at the Stake or have me Crucified

[edit on 25-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

Look at what Christians valued in the New Testament. Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ near the winter solstice and Easter celebrates Christs rising near the spring solstice when the sun crosses the equator.. I know thats not much but then there is the narrative about St Thomas feeling Christs wounds for himself and the three days Christs body spent in a cave before being risen. The way I interpreted the three days in the cave is that they were 3 days that should not have been there. -3

3 shows up in the bible in several places including the 3 wisemen etc. It probably has multiple uses depending on who is interpreting. That is the case with much of the Christian allegory.........

reply to post by B.A.C.

Is the verse mathematically incorrect using the measurements and value of the measurements described?

YES.

Is the verse mathematically correct to a couple decimal points?

NO. It is 'correct' only to an integral approximation. In other words, it is wrong. Still, I suppose you could make a brass chamber-pot using that value of pi.

It isn't as if the authors of this potpourri of rubbish didn't have better sources to go to if they wanted it. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians had already worked out far more accurate computations of pi. Source

However, knowing you of old, I realize that nothing will convince you, or silence you, so this will be the limit of my engagement with you.

[edit on 27/8/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by superluminal11


Ok, off topic post in the extreme. This is an attempt at a thread jack.


reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


I didn't call you a gnostic, I called the author of the text a gnostic. Aside from that, all you're giving me are vague comments.

Never assume...

Well, at some point I'm going to have to make an educated guess based upon reasoning, as I cannot go through life considering all possible outcomes to be equally likely. Partially because there are some outcomes that are more likely, but also because there are some outcomes that are entirely impossible. Such as a piece of text being used to fit whatever position a person wants it to.

The church of Rome would have you believe this about the Pharisees... LOL

Now you're dismissing my argument because it's similar to what the Roman Catholic Church would say. Adding 'lol' to a statement doesn't make mine incorrect.

How about you try supporting your positions instead of dismissing mine?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You wrote.... Quote;

I believe that the passage you're quoting refers to the scribes and pharisees of the time of Jesus, not the ones that preceded him.

my answer was….Quote;

Never assume...

The church of Rome would have you believe this about the Pharisees... LOL

In other words the Roman church teaches that the “Scribes” were at the time of the carpenter, and Not "Scribes" in general. (before or after the time of the carpenter)

Referring to your statement; Quote;

I believe that the passage you're quoting refers to the scribes and pharisees of the time of Jesus, not the ones that preceded him.

So I don’t understanding what you are getting at….

Esp. when I was agreeing with you regarding Pi…..