Even by your generous error margin, 1 Kings is off by over a full cubit.
And the point is that Deutsch (the guy I was talking to) was saying that EVERY word in the Bible was LITERALLY true and completely without error of any kind.
When someone makes a claim like that, ANY counter-example proves him wrong.
That's a little trick anyhow. When forced in a corner they will just say, oh that was meant allegorically anyhow, so it is "true in spirit", etc. You can't really pin "literalists" down -- not that any two agree on same interpretation anyhow. Yet each one thinks they have a lock on the one true interpretation. It is pretty comical, really.
It is not my "error" margin, it is the reporting margin chosen by the reporter, in this case the writer of I Kings. Allegation of error based on an arbitrary preference of rounding point is as fallacious and absurd as me alleging that your value of pi is incorrect because you only report to 5 decimal places. Any diameter from 9.5 cubits to 10.5 cubits would round to 10 cubits.
And the point is that Deutsch (the guy I was talking to) was saying that EVERY word in the Bible was LITERALLY true and completely without error of any kind.
When someone makes a claim like that, ANY counter-example proves him wrong.
Use of the word "literal" in Biblical hermeneutics generally means taking the words in their proper grammatical, historical, contextual sense, sort of like "original intent" in reference to the Constitution. When the words of I Kings are interpreted according to the plain grammatical, historical context, it is ludicrous to assert error. If the passage in question were explicitly stating a calculation or value for pi, then you would have a point. But it doesn't. It's just an accurate, general representation of a circular bathtub.
Cordially,