Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
Well you seem to have a spiritual illness that no one but God can help you with. I'm sorry about that.
What a novel concept!, lol. You can send'em to college, but that don't make'm smart.
No. A cubit varied depending on the person doing the measuring, because it was a body dimension; but if they same person measured two lengths in cubits, the ratio of the two measurements would not contain any error due to that variability. We call this phenomenon covariance.
So it is your who are incorrect, and you're still being a jackass. And all to try to argue tendentiously that the Hebrews did not think pi was 3, something that is attested in the Talmud as well as Kings and Chronicles.
Go away, and troll no more.
Right. Ok, then. Go out into your back yard and mark out 30 cubits on the ground with your arm and then come back and tell me that when you are done your measurement is exactly 30 times the distance between the tip of your elbow and the tip of your finger.
I suggest that the variant will be much greater than 29.89/30.00.
You're a "scientist". Go do the experiment and tell me if I'm wrong.
Go away, and troll no more.
Since you are afraid to give straight answers to my questions, I suppose there's no point in posting to you anymore anyway.
Of course, that's not what I would do. I'd get a piece of string, measure out a cubit length, use it to make divisions on a longer string of 30 cubits, and do the measurement with that string. And the Israelites, not being imbeciles, would have done the same thing. By that method we could get the error in the ratio well under 1%.
In any case, we're not talking about a measurement, are we? We're talking about a book that is supposedly inerrant. The 10 cubit/30 cubits were not measured, they were divinely inspired. And if it's inerrant, there is no error, by definition.
You just said the Israelites were so stupid that they taught that pi=3. Now you are claiming they are so intelligent that they would have measured the circumference using a string. Well the outside circumference would have been roughly 31 cubits and a span. Correct? That is why you guys insist that the bible is in error.
Assuming the bowl was one hand thick, the inside circumference would have measured about how many cubits? Huh Prof?
Can you answer that question?
Will you answer that question?
Fried jello never sticks to the wall.
What would the inside circumference be of a bowl 10 cubits in outside diameter whose walls are one hand breadth thick? How many cubits? :-)
well what are we saying the handbreadth is, about 4 inches?
I wonder if that knucklehead Rick Warren will buy into this like he bought into the global warming scam.
That being said, such rounding introduces or assumes an error, and you claim the Bible is inerrant.
This is the problem with cultists; when their irrational belief run headlong into reality, they become hysterical.
Now go bray at the moon. I'm done.
A hand's breadth is approximately 1/4 of a cubit -- some use 4 inchers and others use 4.5 inches) A span is approximately 1/2 of a cubit or about 9 inches.
So the inside diameter would be approximately 9 1/2 cubits. So mulitply 9.5 cubits by pi and approximately how many cubits do you have?
about 30
Oooohh, a tough guy.
You just can't stand it, can you? You previously denied that the measurement of a hand's breadth even existed in the bible and now you are insisting that it must be used when approximating cubital measurements. You just can't admit that the inside circumference was 30 cubits. You demand a scientific accuracy which did not exist back then. Nearly all measurements in the bible were rounded to the nearest cubit.
This is the problem with cultists; when their irrational belief run headlong into reality, they become hysterical.
You are the one who is hysterical here. You can't bring yourself to say 30. It's just too painful, isn't it?
Now go bray at the moon. I'm done.
Bye.
Now how painful was that? :-)
So you believe the Bible is approximately true?
Pretty painful. I was thinking I needed that old slide rule I haven't seen in 40 years. The trick is we need to know the thickness of the large cast metal container.
I would reply, but you will tell the moderator that I am stalking you.
I gave up complaining to the moderators quite some time ago. I decided that if people want to rumble, I'm happy to oblige.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.