"absolutely wrong" is a foolish claim to make in this argument. I am not "absolutely wrong". I can be in circumstances where 3.0 is good enough, or I can be in circumstances where 3.0 is a blatant error.
- it would appear that you are confusing the definition of 'accurate' and 'complete' with the definition of 'infallible'. Infallible means that it is error-free, incapable of erring or failing. If God didn't include sufficient detail so that the reader could figure it out or know something exactly or have it laid out in what is deemed to be a crystal clear manner, that doesn't mean that it is in error. It just means that He chose in His wisdom to not include all the details. And if some of those areas where all the details are lacking give rise to a few potential answers, that has nothing to do with infallibility.
I see. So if someone chose to build a round vessel, following exactly the pattern of the vessel reverenced in the bible, that person should regard the 5% gap in the vessel's rim as non-existent. An approximation is an error that we choose to tolerate, for various earthy (fallible) reasons.
Ok, once and for all walk me through all the statements in all the verses that refer to 'exactly the pattern of the vessel reverenced in the bible to arrive at the 5% gap in the vessel's rim' you are so fond of regaling us with. Lots of details instead of conjecture on your part would be very much appreciated.