errancy galore (redux)

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

 > >CREA
 > >    A brief addendum to the above.  Peter Beckmann's  __History of Pi__,
 > >states that as late as the 5th century CE, the Hebrews believed that pi =
3
 > >and offers as evidence a citation from the Talmud which goes as follows:
 > >
 > >
 > >    "...that which in circumference is three hands broad is one hand
 broad".
 > >
 > >
 > >CREA
 > >    Hope that this helps.
 > >
 > 
 > TILL
 > Would you happen to know where this statement is in the Talmud or on what
 > page of Beckmann's book this was quoted?
 > 
 > By the way, don't expect Alward to be convinced.  When he's on a binge to
 > champion a far-fetched explanation of a discrepancy, he is as stubborn as
 > any inerrantist I have known.
 >===================
 >Joe Alward:  
 >
 >Of course, I am convinced.  Joseph Crea has no problem convincing me that
the
 >Hebrews probably believed that pi was 3, and I think it is virtually certain
 >that the writer of 1 Kings thought pi was 3, too.  But, there is no proof of
 >this in the Bible, and that is the only thing most inerrantists will trust. 
 >
 >My point is not that it is believable that the 1 Kings author knew that pi
 was
 >3.14, but that errantists cannot make a convincing argument that 1 Kings
 is an
 >OBVIOUS error.  
 >
 >Let me explain my position again.  If we assume that the Sea was exactly 30
 >cubits around, may we make a righteous claim that the author was in error
 when
 >he said that the diameter was 10 cubits?  Ask yourself this question:  If
the
 >diameter was, in fact, the required 30/pi = 9.55 cubits, what would you have
 >expected the bible writer to put down for the diameter?  The nearest whole
 >number (10), or some fraction or decimal?  If fractions and decimals are
used
 >nowhere else in the bible, then why shouldn't we accept the rounding up to
10
 >in 1 Kings as normal practice?
 >
 >Until we know for sure that the diameter wasn't 9.55 cubits, we shouldn't
 >claim bible error, in my opinion.  Farrell seems to prefer to believe that
 the
 >diameter was 10 exactly, and I believe that is a mistake.
 >
 ACHILLES
 
 Actually, I think Alward's point here is good - to a point. The rounding of
 the number is not inconceivable at all, assuming we are dealing with a
 mundane human writing. Only because this writing is claimed to be divinely
 inspired and innerrant does this statement seem an irreconcilable error.
 And I have no doubt that theists with more sophisticated world-views would
 see this explanation, and use it in a heartbeat. So why do we not see this
 argument from innerantists, but only from Yaldabaoth's advocate Joe? Simply
 because the more sophisticated theists have long since abandoned the
 doctrine of innerancy, if they ever held it to begin with. 
 
 However, Alward is constantly brushing aside sophisticated arguments
 because he thinks that innerantists are not sophisticated enough to
 understand them. So I have to wonder why he keeps presenting
 counter-arguments that are too sophisticated for errantists to originate? 
 
 Seriously, the rounding of the number (assuming divine inspiration is not
 claimed) may seem obvious to me and Joe, but I have never heard an
 inerrantist propose it, perhaps because it conflicts with their view of
 innerancy, perhaps because they really aren't that sophisticated. The
 latter must be true in some cases, because I have heard more than one
 bibliololater claim that the irrational number we moderns use for pi is a
 satanic lie, that pi "really is" 3 precisely, and quote this verse to prove
 it. To quote Dave Berry, "Folks, I am not making this up." 
 
 /ACHILLES
=======================
Joe Alward:

See also my latest post, Thoughts on Solomon's Sea.  It's also found in my
article, at http://members.aol.com/JAlw/value_of_pi.html
 
 
 

• Previous message: errancy galore (redux)
• Next message: errancy galore (redux)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]