Re: PI In the Bible (Oh no! Not again!)

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Fri Oct 20 2000 - 10:07:04 MDT

Fraser Orr wrote:
> >From: "John Clark" <>
> Fraser Orr <> Wrote:
> >All measurements are expressed to a degree of accuracy.
> >But this measurement wasn't made by you or me, it was made
> >by the omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe
> Sorry, John, I am hoist on my own petard. What I actually
> meant to say was "all measurements are expressed to a degree
> of precision" rather than accuracy. So then, the measurements
> are not especially precise (though they are exactly the sort
> of precision one would expect in a predecimal society), but
> imprecision is not error. Despite your attempts to derive
> a mathematical meaning to the words, the simple fact is that
> it is a matter of fact statement, from which we would expect
> little precision, (though hopefully no error.)

Actually, since pre decimal societies expressed non-integers as fractions
instead, and since both the greeks and egyptians and Babylonians had all
calculated pi to a far greater degree of both accuracy and precision, and that
the israelis were derived from the third and influenced by the second, AND that
the isrealis had done quite a bit of construction work in egypt and whose masons
who built the temple of Solomon were supposed to be highly skilled in
mathematics, it follows that either the bible is NOT the word of God, or that
God is an idiot and is a far lesser god than those of the greeks, babylonians,
and egyptians.

> >and so
> >I expect just a little bit more, after all, he can thumb his nose at
> >Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. For that matter he could just
> >change the value of PI so the passage would be correct, but He
> >didn't. And He did something even more unforgivable, I expect
> >better writing ability from God than the Japanese gentleman who
> >wrote the "English" assembly instructions for my stereo cabinet.
> I don't know what Heisenberg has to do with it, however, it is
> clear that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a
> round object is not always pi. If the round object is slightly
> elliptical, there are a range of "diameters", some of which give
> a ratio less than pi, some more.

Which makes the object an ellipse, NOT a circle. Since the biblican passage in
question specified a fixed diameter of ten cubits, then it follows that we are
talking about a circle, and NOT an ellipse.

> You might say, well the omnipotent God could make a perfect circle
> or an item with an exact length. Perhaps you'd be right. However,
> this object, as is evident from the passage, was not made by God,
> but by a bronzeworker named Hiram.

Who was allegedly responsible for designing the Temple of Solomon, and given
what is known about architectural knowledge of the region and time, we know that
someone like Hiram actually knew of a far more accurate calculation of pi. And,
if Hiram knew, then its rather obvious that 'God' should have known. The fact
that the bible is allegedly the word of god, and it is wrong means that either
god is wrong or else the bible is not the word of god. Its all rather simple to

> So once again, it is perfectly possible to make a circle diameter
> ten cubits, circumference 30 cubits, as long as you recognize that
> this means "to the nearest cubit". Which hardly seems an unreasonable
> assumption.

Since the israelis regularly used fractions of cubits in measurements, this is a
bogus point.

> However, as I said, I feel a little uncomfortable with this discussion
> here. It is not at all relevant to the subject of this list. I feel
> particularly so as a new contributor. So, as the saying goes, that is
> all she wrote.

The original topic was to demonstrate that the Bible is NOT the word of god,
which is a concept that apparently some people have a memetic disposition to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:17 MDT