[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions for literalists

As I have already said, it can easily be interpreted to mean that, but it does not actually say that and requires interpretation to reach that conclusion, you have to read between the lines. Nowhere does it say it was a vessel.

Well then I guess all communication is dead, since I cannot understand the words that you have typed without interpreting the definitions of such words. Nope, we're just wasting our time with funny looking scribbles.

But you are always saying that the KJV-CFT is theTrue word of "god" and not open to interpretation, show me where it actually says it was a vessel without the need to interpret the words to draw that conclusion.
I am not the one saying the maths is true and does not require interpretation.

I'm not interpreting anything, I said that you cannot give pi as a decimal number without rounding. So God rounded to the whole number, I don't think precision to the hundredth position was required to build a bowl.

Now try reading all of 1 Kings 7 and what can we learn?

1 It took Solomon thirteen years, however, to complete the construction of his palace.
It's discussing Solomon building his palace.

9 All these structures, from the outside to the great courtyard and from foundation to eaves, were made of blocks of high-grade stone cut to size and trimmed with a saw on their inner and outer faces.
Everything was made from high-grade stone.

23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [o] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [p] to measure around it. 24 Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.
25 The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. 26 It was a handbreadth [q][r] in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.


Now can you tell me how the sea stood on twelve bulls if it was sitting underground? Just because you're too stupid to understand what a ten cubit wide and 5 cubit deep bowl sitting on the backs of 12 bulls looks like, does not mean that the rest of us can't understand it.

Now grow up and pull the spaghetti out of your ears.


So just to recap, to conclude that the molten sea was held in a vessel you need to read between the lines and interpret what the text means.[/QUOTE]

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Questions for literalists

If you believe the Bible should be read literally, then do you believe that...

1. The value of pi=3 (1 Kings 7:23)?

2. Snakes and donkeys can talk (Genesis 11, Numbers 22)?

3. Goats copulating in front of striped rods will produce striped babies (Genesis 30)?

4. That the earth has four corners (Isaiah 11)?

5. Rabbits chew the cud (Leviticus 11)?

There are many more examples besides, but this will do for now!

Please take a look at THIS sermon. It will answer all your questions.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [o] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [p] to measure around it. 24 Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.

Yes that is clearer but it is not from the KJV-CFT
That states:
23And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

What you have quoted is from the NIV-CFT are you saying that the NIV-CFT is closer to the word of god then the KJV-CFT?

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions for literalists

Yes that is clearer but it is not from the KJV-CFT
That states:
23And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

What you have quoted is from the NIV-CFT are you saying that the NIV-CFT is closer to the word of god then the KJV-CFT?

Excuse me, I don't know why Bible Gateway defaults to the NIV. Of course it's beyond your capabilities to change the Text, isn't it.

1But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house.

9All these were of costly stones, according to the measures of hewed stones, sawed with saws, within and without, even from the foundation unto the coping, and so on the outside toward the great court.

23And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
24And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.
25It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.
26And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
27And he made ten bases of brass; four cubits was the length of one base, and four cubits the breadth thereof, and three cubits the height of it.
28And the work of the bases was on this manner: they had borders, and the borders were between the ledges:
29And on the borders that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubims: and upon the ledges there was a base above: and beneath the lions and oxen were certain additions made of thin work.
30And every base had four brasen wheels, and plates of brass: and the four corners thereof had undersetters: under the laver were undersetters molten, at the side of every addition.


Still says it was sitting on a bunch of brass oxen, doesn't it.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Questions for literalists

Since we have answered all your questions rover, perhaps you could answer some of mine.

If you believe that some of the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, what other parts should not be taken literally?

1. Was Mary not really a virgin when she bore Jesus?
2. Was Jesus not really the Son of God? Maybe that is all metaphorical too.
3. Did Jesus really die and rise from the grave?
4. Are women allowed to preach or even speak in church? I know Paul said they aren't, but maybe he didn't really mean it, since you don't take the Bible literally.
5. Did Jesus really perform miracles or is that not to be taken literally either?
6. Who gets to choose what parts of the Bible you decide to follow?

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

26And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

By doing the maths we have already seen that the brim was 0.707963267948965 cubits thick a cubit is 17 1/2 in
So the rim is 12.38935718910689 which approximately a gomedh (or foot) but not a hand breadth(or span). So yet again we have bible giving an approximation. Is the Bible not exact?

[James Dewitt]

Re: Questions for literalists

Since we have answered all your questions rover, perhaps you could answer some of mine.

If you believe that some of the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, what other parts should not be taken literally?

1. Was Mary not really a virgin when she bore Jesus?
2. Was Jesus not really the Son of God? Maybe that is all metaphorical too.
3. Did Jesus really die and rise from the grave?
4. Are women allowed to preach or even speak in church? I know Paul said they aren't, but maybe he didn't really mean it, since you don't take the Bible literally.
5. Did Jesus really perform miracles or is that not to be taken literally either?
6. Who gets to choose what parts of the Bible you decide to follow?

Levi you crack me up sometimes. I wonder if the burning bush was a metaphor to? Oh wait maybe is was a forest fire.

[Seth Campbell]

Re: Questions for literalists

By doing the maths we have already seen that the brim was 0.707963267948965 cubits thick a cubit is 17 1/2 in
So the rim is 12.38935718910689 which approximately a gomedh (or foot) but not a hand breadth(or span). So yet again we have bible giving an approximation. Is the Bible not exact?

Way to change the goalpost there bud, is there a reason you only go after the women on this site? Liz proved you wrong, yeah that's right a Christian woman proved you wrong, so you start going on about hand widths.

I like how we're not to interpret anything, but all of a sudden you know how big a cubit is (where in the Bible does it give a cubit to inch ratio?) and you know how wrong this bowl is.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

Way to change the goalpost there bud, is there a reason you only go after the women on this site? Liz proved you wrong, yeah that's right a Christian woman proved you wrong, so you start going on about hand widths.

I like how we're not to interpret anything, but all of a sudden you know how big a cubit is (where in the Bible does it give a cubit to inch ratio?) and you know how wrong this bowl is.

Not moving the goal posts at all, in fact I had started with the fact the the maths does not work, the maths still does not work, unless you accept that you need to add to the words, read between the lines and interpret of the KJV-CFT to make it correct. Now you have to add words, read between the lines and interpret this section of the fair tale to make it work then how can you say any of the rest of it is not open to interpretation.

Now if the fairy tale had either used numbers that worked, or stated the the numbers were about, or approximately 3 and 10 cubits and the rim had been a foot wide not a span, then you could claim that it was not at all fuzzy, but as it stands, what is writ does not fit the description of a work that is True, accurate, not open to interpretation and perfect. Those are all claims that are made for the KJV-CFT to justify its use to the letter, a justification that is not valid as it is not correct to the letter.

As for the size of a cubit, I did not need to convert the results in to inches, I just did at the end to show it in measurements more familiar to your wife.

I do admit to an error, I had taken "hand breadth" as span, that are 2 spans to a cubit, but 6-7 palms (hand breadths), the maths has the rim 0.707963267948965 cubits thick or at least 4 1/2 hand breadths while the word of "god" has it at 1.

Oh and I am quite happy to argue the point with anyone, but it appears the you good lady wife has is having a crisis of faith and has had to see if you can make me go away, that's not going to happen, I am staying here.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions for literalists

Not moving the goal posts at all, in fact I had started with the fact the the maths does not work, the maths still does not work, unless you accept that you need to add to the words, read between the lines and interpret of the KJV-CFT to make it correct. Now you have to add words, read between the lines and interpret this section of the fair tale to make it work then how can you say any of the rest of it is not open to interpretation.

It's not open to interpretation, you said that the Bible didn't say what the sea was, I pointed out that yes it does, and now you're moving the goal posts. I don't see how rounding pi to a whole number is reading between the lines. Hey, maybe God should of put it in to the thousandth place, then you'd say it wasn't accurate enough because it wasn't to the millionth place. You're nothing but a God mocker who goes looking for anything to try and start problems.

Now if the fairy tale had either used numbers that worked, or stated the the numbers were about, or approximately 3 and 10 cubits and the rim had been a foot wide not a span, then you could claim that it was not at all fuzzy, but as it stands, what is writ does not fit the description of a work that is True, accurate, not open to interpretation and perfect. Those are all claims that are made for the KJV-CFT to justify its use to the letter, a justification that is not valid as it is not correct to the letter.

Again, round 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884716939937510 58209749445923078164062862998628034825342117067982 to a whole number. What whole number do you get?

As for the size of a cubit, I did not need to convert the results in to inches, I just did at the end to show it in measurements more familiar to your wife.

I do admit to an error, I had taken "hand breadth" as span, that are 2 spans to a cubit, but 6-7 palms (hand breadths), the maths has the rim 0.707963267948965 cubits thick or at least 4 1/2 hand breadths while the word of "god" has it at 1.

You're making the assumption here, not us.

Oh and I am quite happy to argue the point with anyone, but it appears the you good lady wife has is having a crisis of faith and has had to see if you can make me go away, that's not going to happen, I am staying here.[/quote]I am not having a crisis of faith, a crisis of patience, most definitely, but not a crisis of faith. I am actually debating whether or not to put you on my ignore list because you're more insufferable than a child. I mean a grown man who still wants to play pirate dress-up and play with his spaghetti. I thought most people grew out of that by the age of 8. If I want to deal with a child, I have my own to deal with. I don't need to deal with retards on the internet.

Of course you'll scream win and pwnd if I do block you, because that's your mentality level. Oh hehehehe I pestered a Christian badly enough to make them mad, my friends at 4Chan will be so proud of me.

At least most of the trolls that show up here get bored and leave, but I guess they're just as not easily amused as you are.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

It's not open to interpretation, you said that the Bible didn't say what the sea was, I pointed out that yes it does, and now you're moving the goal posts. I don't see how rounding pi to a whole number is reading between the lines. Hey, maybe God should of put it in to the thousandth place, then you'd say it wasn't accurate enough because it wasn't to the millionth place. You're nothing but a God mocker who goes looking for anything to try and start problems.

As for moving the goal posts did I not start with

ten cubits from the one brim to the other: d=10
a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about: c=30

The distance around a circle is called the circumference. The distance across a circle through the center is called the diameter. is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter. Thus, for any circle, if you divide the circumference by the diameter, you get a value close to Pi. This relationship is expressed in the following formula:



so the KJV CFT says = 30/10 = 3

We then went on to have a discussion about the nature of the sea and if it was help in a vessel, something I have conceded is the case. That still leaves the issue of the maths and how that fits with the numbers given in the KJV-CFT and your interpretation that the numbers are rounded off.

Is god not perfect? would god not use in its perfect form? Just because we do not know exactly what is, are you saying the god would not know what it is and use it.

Lets us use rounded numbers and see what we get:

Diameter
The internal diameter of the vessel is 10 cubits.
Wall of the vessel is 1 hand breadth thick.
Therefore the external diameter is 10 cubit plus 2 hand breadths or 10 2/6 cubits.

Circumference = * 10 2/6 or 32 and a bit cubits
(if we take a cubit to be 7 hand breaths we still get 32 and a bit cubits)

So if "god" was making the numbers simple for us the external circumference would be 32 cubits not 30, this is still making the assumption that god has dumped down the maths.

(for your information I am using 3.141592653589793 for , yes this is an approximation and I am sure God would be more accurate.)

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions for literalists

Because accuracy to the hundredth place was so important to the people building it. Is it possible that the 3 cubits is the inside measurement? Why do you automatically assume it's the outside measurement?

Yes I'm sure that God knows Pi to the googolth position (which would still be a round), what importance would that of been to the bronze makers? Why do you people hold on to this silly pi thing like a dog with a rubber bone. No matter how much you chew it, it's never going to be real.

[Lisa H]

Re: Questions for literalists

Jo Freddie are you mixing up your measuring units of pasta, meatballs and plates.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Questions for literalists

Because accuracy to the hundredth place was so important to the people building it. Is it possible that the 30 cubits is the inside measurement? Why do you automatically assume it's the outside measurement?

Still comes out at over 10 1/5 cubits, which when rounded to the nearest cubit would be 11 cubits in diameter.
Again you are having to put an interpretation on the words to guess what it means.

Yes I'm sure that God knows Pi to the googolth position (which would still be a round), what importance would that of been to the bronze makers?

Valid point if the bronze makers wrote the bible, but if that is the way god gives building instructions I would not want to live in a house made to those tolerances, and I defiantly would not sail in a ship bulit that way.

Why do you people hold on to this silly pi thing

I ask again is the god of the KJV-CFT not perfect? Is not what is writ directly from him? If this is a case of what is writ being an approximation of reality what else in the KJV-CFT is just an approximation?

I am not the one claiming the KJV-CFT is the word of god, not the work of man, and therefore perfect, you are.

[Lisa H]

Re: Questions for literalists

...I would not want to live in a house made to those tolerances, and I defiantly would not sail in a ship bulit that way. ...

Jo, the Lord gave excellent instructions in building a ship. So why would it be wrong in this case

Genesis 6
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.