I've always considered the "pi" deal you mentioned as just an estimate. But rereading it, why would you mention both the diameter and circumference?
Larder | 12.01.08 - 10:52 am | #

Larder,

Why not? Even today what percentage of people know how the diameter and circumference are related? And even if they do, there is nothing wrong with providing redundant information. (And since there was no technology available to cast such a large perfect circle--it could only have been approximately circular--the information isn't fully redundant.)
heddle | 12.01.08 - 10:59 am | #

If you see Gods day is a thousand years, then Adam died on the same day of God that he ate from tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

2 Peter 3:8

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

New International Version
International Bible Society
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984
Bryan King | 12.01.08 - 12:41 pm | #

Bryan,
If we take a "day is like a thousand years," then Adam lived to be over 339 million years in the Lord's sight. You skipped the first half of the verse.

No, Peter is not giving a mathematical conversion of time between us and God. He's quoting from Ps. 90, reminding people that God is not limited by time in His actions. No "light cone" for Him. Hey, He created light.

Consider Ps. 39:5: "my lifetime as nothing" [NASB]...does that mean we really don't exist? No, just that we are small compared to God, both in time-like and space-like ways.
Bill Nettles | Homepage | 12.01.08 - 1:12 pm | #

David,
Typos:

You need "-hour" after "144" in the 3rd paragraph.

Change "out" to "our" in paragraph starting "It then may seem strange"
Bill Nettles | Homepage | 12.01.08 - 1:19 pm | #

Thanks Bill.

The typos are getting more frequent. That's rarely a good sign.
heddle | 12.01.08 - 1:28 pm | #

I'm definitely a biblical critic of the unsophisticated type, but those two passages don't seem to conflict to me. I agree with the spiritual death interpretation, and this is congruous with how death is used in other passages such as, 'the wages of sin is death' (although it seems that the chapter around this verse in Romans provides more supporting context to this 'spiritual death' interpretation), so I don't really see the conflict.

As far as the kindergarten challenges, I derive a different point from them than 'the ancients were idiots'. The bats=birds and especially cud-chewing rabbits obviously shows that the ancients didn't know biology. But it does seem to indicate that whatever supernatural and divine processes were necessarily involved to keep the creation of all these books of the Bible by various authors inerrant worked much better on spiritual topics than those on this reality. Consequently, we can't help but wonder what other boo-boos are in there that we don't know about, which is at least a middle- school challenge.
Spartan | 12.01.08 - 7:05 pm | #

The main reason I brought up the mentioning of both was because of a recent professor. I completed conic sections not to long ago and the professor would give the very smallest amount of info possible for each problem. You could tell what is was before you even looked at the numbers involoved. If this problem was on a test I would assume it was round, but not a circle. Unless the inclusion of both measurments was standard back then (maybe to cut down on the margin of error) I believe both were required to get the full picture.

I'm not really sure what type of measurement would be expected in cubits though. Are there examples of fractions in other parts of the Bible?

I'm sorry to side track your post here. I know your intention was the exact opposite. Keep these lessons coming, I always get a lot out of them.
Larder | 12.01.08 - 10:14 pm | #

"Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference." (1 Kings 7:23)

Well, maybe the thirty is the circumference of the inner wall of a circular annulus, and the outer wall is still ~ 3.14x? Would "brim to brim" (check Hebrew for me) mean between outer edges? Even the ancients knew that pi was around 3 1/7 (or thought it was exactly, since that looked "meaningful" in numerological terms.)
Neil B ☼ | Homepage | 12.02.08 - 12:51 pm | #

Spartan: I think it is only reasonable to think, that the various indications of imperfect knowledge (even about "nonspiritual" issues) show that the Bible was written by persons relying essentially on the outlook and knowledge of their own minds. Whatever else may intrude here and there, it simply doesn't look credible to try and get comprehensive wording dictated/guided from God from the text.

The temptation to believe OTOH that it "must" be such a transmission is based on the inconvenience, of being more on your own if it isn't. But undesirable consequences are treacherous as an attempt to prove that something is the case.
Neil B ☼ | Homepage | 12.02.08 - 12:56 pm | #

The real discrepancy isn't about Science, but Faith. I can't begin to count the number of times - in the face of reasoned debate - a YEC/ID defender was backed-up to their foundational argument:

"If we don't believe the Bible is literally True, than how are we to know or believe that anything the Bible says is true!!!"

In reality, however, what they mean to say is, "If I (the literalist defender) don't believe the Bible is literally true..."

It doesn't matter how many examples of reasonable Christians who are also Scientists and/or accept Evolution and an "old earth" are presented, because the defender never acknowledges such people exist. And that's how we know the defender is really talking about themselves. The defender is actually making desperate - but unspoken - plea:

"I do not have the means to accept Science and the Bible without conflict, and I must choose one or the other. And because I know myself, and the sins I am capable of, I must choose Biblical Literalism for the good of others and myself. And let me warn you, if you convince me that Science is right (the Bible is sometimes allegorical), then I'm afraid can't control myself and I might do sinful, perhaps terrible, things. So you see, I NEED a society that enforces and/or encourages my belief in Biblical Literalism because I lack the strength necessary to police myself."

In essence, the defender's faith is Christianity is very brittle.
R Hampton | 12.02.08 - 8:37 pm | #

R Hampton, you have a point but I doubt that worry over temptation to misconduct (loss of ethical compass) is the main concern of most literalists/fundamentalists. I think it is more a case of being brought up a certain way and needed the assurance of a font of teaching that is "transparent" and doesn't need working through (as via "higher criticism" of the conventional academic sort.) That is also a form of insecurity (since the rest of us accept that we have to assess things and make judgments about sources and meanings), but it is not fear of one's own unleashed id.
Neil B ☼ | Homepage | 12.03.08 - 12:54 pm | #

Neil B,

It's good to hear your perspective. Being an outsider, I have only my interactions (mostly from online discussions and debates) and my readings (First Things, Christianity Today, One News Now, etc.) to understand their motivations. You're probably right that for most its simply comforting to know what is right without question.

But my experiences have been so ... fierce ... that I still believe that there is a very real, and not inconsequential, minority for whom it's about fear of temptation. Although I will concede that perhaps the paranoia is not about themselves, but how they will be endangered if everyone else falls to dark temptations.
R Hampton | 12.03.08 - 2:08 pm | #