About or Approximately

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

XIANA

  So, why didn't God just dedicate an infinitely large book just to tell us
the
comparatively unimportant information of the circumference a pool.  The truth
is
that anywhere you chose to terminate pi you are introducing an inaccuracy.  3
is fine for an approximation, especially if it is something reasonable picky
like the circumference of a pool.
 
 
BRYCE
     Actually, using the word 'approximately' would have better served
the author, while saving on paper.  But the text makes no indication
of an approximation.

ACHILLES
Not only that, but the "approximate" dimensions, rounded to the nearest
integer (the hebrew number system was based on integers correct?) would
have been (correct me if I am wrong) either "about 9" by "about 30" or else
"about 10" by "about 31" no? Considering a cubit is around a foot and a
half, half a cubit is a noticeable difference. Leads one to suspect the sea
was a figment of the writers imagination, for if it had existed either
1)the difference in the actual measurements and the ones recorded would
have been glaringly noticeable or 2)it would have had to have been a very
obvious example of an elipse, not a circle. 


 TILL
 If the writer had said "about thirty," that would certainly not have been
without precedent in the "inspired" text.   Here are some places where
approximations were expressed.
 
 >Joshua 3:2  At the end of three days the officers went through the camp
 >3  and commanded the people, "When you see the ark of the covenant of
 Yahweh your God being carried by the levitical priests, then you shall set
 out from your place. Follow it,
 >4  so that you may know the way you should go, for you have not passed this
 way before. Yet there shall be a space between you and it, a distance of
 ABOUT two thousand cubits; do not come any nearer to it."
 >
 
 >Joshua 4:13  ABOUT forty thousand armed for war crossed over before Yahweh
 to the plains of Jericho for battle.
 >
 
 >Joshua 7:5  The men of Ai killed ABOUT thirty-six of them, chasing them
 from outside the gate as far as Shebarim and killing them on the slope. The
 hearts of the people melted and turned to water.
 >
 
 >1 Samuel 9:22  Then Samuel took Saul and his servant-boy and brought them
 into the hall, and gave them a place at the head of those who had been
 invited, of whom there were about thirty.
 >
 
 I could fill several pages with other examples, but these are sufficient to
 show that stating an approximation was very common in the Bible, so I can
 see no reason why a writer inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity would
 not have known that the circumference of a circle 10 cubits in diameter
 wasn't exactly 30 cubits.  This would have been an appropriate place for the
 word "about" to be used.
 
 On the other hand, I have long looked upon passages like those above as
 evidence that biblical writers were not inspired by an omniscient,
 omnipotent deity, for if such an entity were verbally guiding the writer of
 Joshua, he would have known the exact number of men killed at Ai.  Why,
 then, wouldn't he have stated the exact number, since it was such a low
 figure anyway?  Had there been 2,987 men killed at Ai, we could understand
 why an inspired writer may have rounded off the number to 3,000, but "about
 thirty-six"?   Why state such low casualties in approximations?  Why not say
 that 35 or 38, or whatever the exact number was, were killed?  The same, of
 course, would have been true of the number of people present at the banquet
 in 1 Samuel 9:22.  If there were 29 in attendance, then why not say 29?  If
 there were 32, then why not say 32?  In my opinion, such approximations as
 these give away that the writers were not inspired by an omniscient,
 omnipotent deity.

 Can you imagine the fear in the Levites following the ark in compliance with
 Joshua's instructions in Joshua 3:4?  Knowing the petulance of their god
 Yahweh who was likely to kill anyone who dared to violate any of his
 restrictions concerning "holy objects," I can see them walking behind the
 ark constantly wondering aloud to one another, "Hey, are we ABOUT two
 thousand cubits behind the ark?"  
 
================
Joe Alward:

The "about two thousand cubits" verse is particularly relevant to the pi
verse.  The author should have said "about" if he really knew that the
dimensions weren't accurate.  I also agree that "about 36" is ridiculous; this
is sign of an author who is not thinking clearly.

I've shown earlier that apologists best position is based on an assumption
that the circumference was rounded down from 30.4999 cubits, and the diameter
rounded up from 9.708 cubits; thus, the dimensions of the circumference had to
be in error by at least 1.63 %, and the diameter by 2.92 %.  If Till can
understand why an inspired author might round 2987 up to 3000--an error of
0.44 %, can he then accept the percentages above?  Where do we draw the line,
and who draws it?

There is no doubt--it seems--that the author would have been much better off
if he had said "about" in both places.  I'm not sure, however, that I agree
that skeptics can point to this inaccuracy as evidence that God could not have
inspired the author to write about Solomon's Sea.  It seems that skeptics
create a straw man by assuming that God always commanded his writers to
communicate perfectly.  If we assume that every line of verse in the bible
must be perfect in every respect, then we will find evidence of fallibility in
every single verse.

Do all inerrantists really believe that God MUST have wanted every verse to
represent a perfect communication, down to the exact fraction of a cubit.  If
an author could have been clearer in a verse--as in the "about 36" verse Till
mentions--does this mean that he could not have been inspired?

• Previous message: Anit-Armstrong Books
• Next message: About or Approximately
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]