Age of the earth

[tumbleweed41]

Does the Bible Get Pi Wrong?

From your link

Solution #1: It could be that the author of 1 Kings was simply rounding. Sure, the Greek mathematicians would not round pi to 3, but the author of Kings was certainly not a mathematician. It’s silly of skeptics to hold a non-Mathematician to the degree of precision that one would use. For example, if we ask how many gallons of fuel a rocket contains, we expect a detailed answer like “4,942,827.78 gallons” from a NASA engineer, if he is involved in a technical discussion with other engineers. However, you can’t expect this NASA engineer to tell that detailed number to regular people. Instead, he would round it off to something like 5 billion gallons, or 4.9 billion gallons. The same could be said for the author of Kings.
Solution #2: It’s possible that the circumference of 30 cubits given was excluding the width of the brim. A brim is a projecting edge of an object. This could account for a difference of slightly over 1 tenth of a cubit.
Solution #3: It says in verse 26 of 1 Kings that the walls of this object were a handbreadth thick. One handbreadth is about 10 cm, so this would add 10 cm to each wall, for a total of 20 cm. If the circumference was measured internally, and if we take the 20 cm for the walls, we will get 4.3 meters for the internal diameter, so the internal circumference would be 4.3 X 3.14. This would be 13.5 meters for the internal circumference, with is approximately 30 cubits.

What we have here are excuses for why it is wrong.
As I have already said, the Chinese calculated Pi at 3 at that time. And the Babylonians calculated it at 3 1/8. The Egyptians figured it at (16/9)*2.

So it is not surprising that the author got it wrong. No one at that time was getting it right. Mathematics had not advanced that far yet, especially in the Middle East.

The simple fact is, it is wrong. It is based on mathematical understanding at that time. Just as classifying bats as birds was based on the understanding of biology at that time.

What this shows is that humans based their explanations of nature on their limited understandings of how nature worked. They knew nothing of what we know today about geology, hydrology, chemistry, mathematics, biology, physics, etc. So they wrote based on their limited understanding of how the world worked.

Thus it is fallible. It is in ere at times.
But the Bible was never meant to be a book on science or mathematics, was it?

The OT in particular was/is a spiritual and moral guide for the Hebrew people. The NT is a guide to spiritual salvation for Christians.

And those who hold either to a higher standard than the very natural laws they claim were created by God himself are guilty of a willful ignorance I doubt God would endorse.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Its alsready a proven fact the earth is billions of years old from many scientific methods. The YECers are dishonet and could careless about the actual science.

Show me a YEC scientific paper the earth is 6000 years old. Its not in the bible and its not science at all. It was disproven many times now in history. Back in the 1920's there was a big argument about the geologic history of Niagra falls. Nor do you understand dating methods and how far they have evolved and what types are used.

If you want to believe the earth is 6000 years old, dispite the millions and billions of facts that support it, that have already proven your beliefs wrong, that is your ignorace on all the sciences. Not sciences problem.

The ice cores go back a million years layer by layer. The shear volume of facts supporting the 4.57 billion year old Earth would blow you out of the water.

If you actually watch those videos they are very specific on the facts. Please tell me where they are not factual specifically. I don't think you even know about plate tectonics at all for one.

The dinosaurs lived for 180 million years and went extint 65 million years ago and did not live at the same time man did and before the dinosaurs, was another huge group of animals during the Permian period where 95% of all life on the planet died, called the great dying. They also went extint and then the dinosaurs evolved.

Mass extintions

Timeline : Discovery Earth : Discovery Channel


BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

You have no education on geology, paleoclimitology, astronomy, chemistry, archeology, physiology, botony, biology or any of the sciences it would seem. You don't even have the bible right with the earth is 6000 years old. That's NOT in the bible.

Yes it is in the bible. Where do you get our earth being a billion of years old from the bible?? Again they look at the same evidence and by making different assumptions come to different conclusions about our planet Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis

 

[Viker]

Yes it is in the bible. Where do you get our earth being a billion of years old from the bible?? Again they look at the same evidence and by making different assumptions come to different conclusions about our planet Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis

Where do they get the earth being thousands of years old? They've made some wacky conclusions there. The Bible isn't real specific on the age probably because it doesn't concern itself with the age.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

You're claiming you don't know if a God does or doesn't exist. You have to make an assumption to make the claim.

So you're saying I'm making an assumption in order to claim that I don't know, yes? What, pray tell, would that assumption be?

Something that happens by chance is usually spontaneous and random, something designed usually fits together so perfectly that it's hard to believe it just randomly happened.

Can you give me an example of something that "fits together so perfectly that it's hard to believe it just randomly happened"?

Look around everything came from somewhere or it's either always been here(like God)..there's no other two options. Do you know of another choice?

That wasn't what I asked you. I asked you how you knew chance and design were the only two options. Here, you've shifted to finite versus eternal.

What basic errors?

For starters, the Bible claims:

• The Earth was created before the Sun (as were plants). (Genesis 1)
• The Moon is a "great light". (Genesis 1:14-19)
• Rabbits chew cud. (Deuteronomy 14:7)
• Bats are birds. (Leviticus 11:13-19 & Deuteronomy 14:11-18)
• There is such a thing as a four-legged insect and a four-legged fowl. (Leviticus 11:20-23)
• Showing a striped stick to animals while they mate will cause them to bear striped offspring. (Genesis 30:37-39)

That's just a few but it'll do for now.

How is it internally inconsistent?

The list of contradictions you're attempting to reconcile in that other thread is a good example.

What do you mean it doesn't have the same message throughout. The bible's message is redemption...Man sins, God promises a deliverer, Christ fulfills that promise, and God tells us what the future holds....

This goes back to the inconsistencies. the Bible's message isn't consistent about what qualifies as sin, how salvation is achieved, the characteristics of god, etc.

By citation do you mean you want the authors names?

How do you know how many there were, when they lived, where they lived, what languages they spoke, etc? Where did you get the information and how do you know it's accurate?

They don't claim to be true.

Irrelevant. You've stated repeatedly "No one can prove God doesn't exist". No one can prove the things I listed don't exist either. As I said, the fact that we can't prove something doesn't exist is not a good reason to believe it, therefore, does exist.

-----

I also want to pose a question to you that I posted earlier but you didn't answer:

Which is more important, in your mind:

1) Finding out what's actually true.
2) Preserving what you already believe is true.

Again, this isn't to imply you're doing one or the other and it's not to imply the two are 100% mutually incompatible. I'm simply curious which, to you, is the more important.

 

[Looncall]

Ignorant savages??? Really? What makes those guys ignorant?? Because they don't share your beliefs they're ignorant? And savages, that's really unfair...they were human beings like me and you.

Most of what is known was discovered quite recently. Therefore, the ancients lacked that knowledge: ie they were ignorant of how the universe actually works.

The Bible is a litany of atrocities such as genocide, slavery, torture etc. The society that produced it, and the people who lived in it, were indeed savage.

 

[Turing]

Ignorant savages??? Really? What makes those guys ignorant?? Because they don't share your beliefs they're ignorant? And savages, that's really unfair...they were human beings like me and you.

They were ignorant the same way that I'm ignorant about performing brain surgery.

I think Carl Sagan summed it up best..."We long to be here for a purpose even though - despite much self-deception - none is evident. The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life's meaning. We long for a parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is better than ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring faith."

 

[Father Heathen]

A creationist scientist would agree with automobiles, computers,and medicine but they still might say you're dating methods make incorrect assumptions.

So a creationist only agrees with the results of the scientific method when it's convenient? "Science is the devil's deception...except when it produces stuff I find useful."

 

[Father Heathen]

Why shoudln't I use it for science or history?

Because it's neither scientifically or historically accurate.

 

[Father Heathen]

Ignorant savages??? Really? What makes those guys ignorant?? Because they don't share your beliefs they're ignorant? And savages, that's really unfair...they were human beings like me and you.

They owned and beat slaves, they subjugated women, they raped the women of defeated enemies, they sold their own daughters into marriages against their will (which amounts to forced prostitution, rape and sexual slavery), they brutally murdered people for simply for eating shrimp, loving the wrong person, wearing mixed fabrics, rotating crops or talking to menstruating women. They were indeed ignorant savages. I don't understand why anyone would use that garbage as a moral compass in the modern world.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Well there's some historical evidence for some of the stories. But even without the evidence I've already told you. The bible says so, and since the bible is a book inspired by God than whatever it says is true. And I said the bible says is true b/c the bible claims to be true. Again if there was a book taht could "prove" the bible that book would be superior.

That is awesome! You know, there is a lot of money to be made here. I shall pop off now and write a book which says it is the true word of god, and that all other holy books are false. Hopefully I will convert people like you to my religion and make millions! After all, people like you are the backbone of religion. Thanks!

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I looked at your example again and yes it is circular, but it doesn't matter. If there was something that was able to "prove" the bible is true. Then that thing would have superiority over the bible,and agian I believe the bible is true b/c it's God's word(inspired by him) and it says its true.

So basically, you are saying that you will believe a book because it says it is true. Well, then you place your faith above logic and reason, and that is good. Seems to me there is no point presenting facts and evidence to you.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Okay then it's not circular reasoning. The bible is true because it's God's word and his word says it's true.

Alright, let me give you a scenario. Suppose a man raped and killed a woman. He is brought before the court to present his case. He says "I am innocent". The prosecutor asks "Why should I believe you? Can you prove your innocence?". The guy says "Yes I can prove my innocence. I am innocent because I say I am". According to your logic, you would set this man free. Is that logical? Or ethical?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

No I would not and doens't the Qu'rahn contradict itself? The bible NEVER contradicts itself. If a book contradicts ITSELF then it CAN'T be true. I'm sorry about the circular reasoning but AGAIN if there was something that showed the bible was true that would be superior. How should I word that logically?

The bible NEVER contradicts itself? That's a good one! :biglaugh:
A list of contradictions in the bible

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Are you actually interested in seeing that all those examples DON'T show that the bible contradicts itself? If so I don't mind spending time and research to show you, but I don't want to watse the time if you could care less As to the logical thing I'll post something about it hold on. (I don't know hwo to reply to only certain quotes)

Well, if you say the Bible NEVER contradicts itself, then just one contradiction is enough to prove that that claim is false. And when you are presented with the list of contradictions, you fall back to the logical fallacy of stating that you will show us a list of examples that DON'T show that the bible contradicts itself. This is meaningless.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

:yes:I believe the bible is the absolute authority on everything. And according to what it says the world is about 6,000 yrs old

If you believe the Bible is the absolute authority on EVERYTHING, I have to question your morals and ethics. Does this mean you condone slavery, misogyny, murder etc?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

So a creationist only agrees with the results of the scientific method when it's convenient? "Science is the devil's deception...except when it produces stuff I find useful."

Pretty much always the case.. especially when they make such declarations via a computer

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why shoudln't I use it for science or history?

Because it's wrong...which is probably the reason why any self respecting scientist/historian worth his or her weight in Reese's Pieces don't use such a book for scientific or historical purposes. :slap:

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The bible NEVER contradicts itself? That's a good one! :biglaugh:
A list of contradictions in the bible

Well, she's on a mission right now to overcome 463 of those contradictions, and that they don't really contradict each other. She's doing this right now. This is an historical moment since she'll be the first person in the whole wide world to prove the inerrancy of the Bible to humanity.

 

[Turing]

Well, she's on a mission right now to overcome 463 of those contradictions, and that they don't really contradict each other. She's doing this right now. This is an historical moment since she'll be the first person in the whole wide world to prove the inerrancy of the Bible to humanity.

It may take her awhile to reply with the answer but I get where she is coming from. In science, when there's an unanswered question, people are inspired to test and ask tough questions. The tentative answers they receive are transparent and open to confirmation, refutation or modification by their peers. This keeps the process intellectually honest and moves knowledge forward. Faith never enters the equation. In the past when religion and reality (science) collide in an attempt to describe the universe and to advance knowledge, it's religion that ultimately yields. There is no reason to believe that this trend won't continue as we discover more about the origins of the universe, whether there was anything before the "big bang" and how life began from non-life. Science will provide those answers, not religion.

In religion, the same type of tough questions are frowned upon (or worse). The answers given come from 1900-2500 year old book, or in dream-like revelations to a select few. People like the OP don't need anything else outside the Bible. God made his statement at the press conference and he won't be taking any follow-up questions. If evidence points to a contrary position to your belief system, the evidence is dismissed in favor of faith, which is belief without (or in spite of) evidence. Reality is subverted in favor of fantasy. It may be psychologically more soothing for the OP, it may remove cognitive dissonance to believe there is cosmic justice out there and we can all understand the human need to be loved, rewarded and forgiven. It's a good schtick that's worked well and will continue to work.

I get religion and its positive role in social cohesion, group belonging, comfort in rituals, etc...Let's forget about all the evil it promotes and propogates, but focus on the allure. However, despite the these benefits, I think the OP has made it obvious through their responses how intellectually untenable their belief system is.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Sure, but that would be contradicting hebrew poetry style the bible wasn't using symbolic language.

So, for example Jesus said, if we want to get life, we should drink His blood and eat His meat. Do you take this literal? or you would "interepret" this to have another meaning than literally eating and drinking?

And, same for creation description, why don't you think it could have a different interpretation other than it's literal meaning?