by insearchoftruth 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I don't think the bible specifically says pi = 3, but it implies that when giving dimensions of a round object. I forget the details, but it says some round object has a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits.
As far as the school board thing...I hadn't heard that. But I have heard of Indiana trying to legally define pi as 3.2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
Kudra,
If I remember correctly, there are some dimensions given in the bible of a bowl of some description. The figures are given for it's diameter and its circumference which give a figure for pi of exactly 3. I'm afraid I can't remember the exact scripture although I seem to remember it was OT.
Edited to add - drwtsn32 beat me to it again!
Ha ha- where in the bible does it say that pi = 3?? that is a good one.
1 Kings 7:23, from the NWT
23 And he proceeded to make the molten sea ten cubits from its one brim to its other brim, circular all around; and its height was five cubits, and it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it.
circumference = pi*D,
Given: circumference = 30, diameter = 10, solve for pi
30 = pi * 10
pi = 3
mmm, in all fairness the Indiana Bill was more than 100 years ago... but still!!
To echo A@G,
"I have only a small flickering light to guide me in the darkness of a thick forest. Up comes a theologian and blows it out." (Denis Diderot)
There is NO science in the Bible - none.
There are shepherd's tales and and agricultural notes and ignorance and superstition, but no science.
People who rely on Bible-based "science" know only what middle-eastern shepherds knew, and no more.
They're twenty-one centuries late for the bus.
Who wrote Kings? Solomon or something??
He must have gone to University of Awake!
I looked at some apologist stuff on the pi thing... they were like, well, the sea was flared out "like a lily" so... blah blah about the diameter being smaller wherre the measurement was taken... blah blah.
Sounds like the mental contortions JWs use to explain away disturbing scriptures.
Myths are about the power of belief, not anything rational and scientific. I've always looked at the Bible stories as myths, metaphors, and useful as such, but they are not less powerful for that, just as the myths of other faiths also have power. They have whatever power the believer gives them.
That power can be abused, but it can also produce good things. Sadly, people use their power of belief in some detrimental and harmful ways much of the time. We've all seen this firsthand.
But, to substitute science for belief is foolish, as you will not come to any correct real world solutions. But, science is also not a substitute for belief. It should not and does not address spirituality and the unique need many humans have to believe in something, however irrational, that is supernatural, beyond the tangible.
I think you can successfully be a spiritual person, a believer in something and still be scientific, rational and logical. One thing need not replace or undermine the other.
Religions that try to replace science are ludicrous, of course, but science trying to abolish spiritual need is ludicrous too. We're complex enough to understand both, and use both in beneficial ways.
mind
'It should not and does not address spirituality and the unique need many humans have to believe in something, however irrational, that is supernatural, beyond the tangible.'
I'm into the spiritual. I like science, too. However, i find little in the bible, regarding applications in spiritual practice.
S
I learned in Hebrew school that upon the circle from Isaiah 40:22 literally means Compassed
If you don't like the version you have then read another or else learn Hebrew.
Point being though that even with your interpretation it still does not supply us with any information that would be considered advanced for that time period, thus maybe sugesting that the bible does have divine origins.
Bible thumpers are so desperate to believe that the bible has something beyond basic common knowledge that they are happy to translate it "circle" and then try to get the rest of us to believe that a sphere and a circle are the same thing.
Some reactions to the Bible might be better as references to certain interpretations of the Bible.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id12.html
Popular use of "Dark Ages"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages#Modern_popular_use
An alternative interpretation to taking Genesis literally, when that interpretation is at odds with science, is imaginable without intending theological damage to the scriptures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Natural_knowledge_and_biblical_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christianity#Compatibility_with_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
An example from 115, or 130-140, AD by Papias: "Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis, the illustrious, a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ, and Clemens, and Pantaenus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church."
