Sorry, doesn't hold water. It was successfully refuted in the link metmom provided. Seems you prefer to visit skeptic sites for your bible education and proofs. But that has nothing to do with what ever YOU define a Christian to be - funny you are so silent about YOUR definition (crickets)
Actually, the link doesn’t refute the argument at all. It provides context within which the calculation works. I have no issue with the analysis at all, after all, pi=3 is incorrect. However, the context requires an interpretation of the biblical text—the text does not stand as inerrant on its own.
I am, therfore, correct.
You need to understand that Buck’s whole point in these types of arguments is to demonstrate that the Bible is not inerrant and is not reliable in all things, that it contains error.
Although, how he determines what the parts are that contain error and what the parts are that don’t is still up for grabs because he hasn’t said. The only comment that I’ve ever seen him make about the Bible as a whole is that it is allegory. When asked if he thinks that Christ was real, died a real death to save us from real sin and real hell, he remains suspiciously silent.
Logically following is that if it’s not reliable, then it can’t be used in an authoritative way.