[Jo Freddie]

Originally Posted by BelieverInGod

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]

Originally Posted by Levi Jones

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]

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

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]

Originally Posted by Seth Campbell

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]

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

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]

Originally Posted by BelieverInGod

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

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

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]

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]

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

[Jo Freddie]

Originally Posted by BelieverInGod

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]

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

...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.

[Jo Freddie]

Originally Posted by Lisa H

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.

You can sail of a ship built to those specification Lisa if you want, but make sure you take a life jacket for when it sinks.

Anyway Lisa you are trying distract people from the main point I am trying to make, that when we look at the description of the molten lake it does not hold water, let alone a molten sea.

[Lisa H]

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

You can sail of a ship built to those specification Lisa if you want, but make sure you take a life jacket for when it sinks.

Anyway Lisa you are trying distract people from the main point I am trying to make, that when we look at the description of the molten lake it does not hold water, let alone a molten sea.

Why would I want to distract people from making you look foolish.

You must concede you are wrong in this case. Anyway, the brim measurement could be from the inside. Did you know that when you measure a washer (nut & bolt type) the measurement is taken from the outer of the hole.

[Jo Freddie]

Originally Posted by Lisa H

Why would I want to distract people from making you look foolish.

You must concede you are wrong in this case. Anyway, the brim measurement could be from the inside. Did you know that when you measure a washer (nut & bolt type) the measurement is taken from the outer of the hole.

Still does not work Lisa
Internal Diameter 10 Cubits
Wall width 1 hand breadth (1/6 or 1/7 cubits)

an internal circumference of over 31 cubits
an external circumference of over 32 cubits

And it still does not say if the dimensions are internal or external so you have to put an interpretation on them, you have to choose what the KJV-CFT means.

[Lisa H]

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

Still does not work Lisa
Internal Diameter 10 Cubits
Wall width 1 hand breadth (1/6 or 1/7 cubits)

an internal circumference of over 31 cubits
an external circumference of over 32 cubits

And it still does not say if the dimensions are internal or external so you have to put an interpretation on them, you have to choose what the KJV-CFT means.

The way in measuring of a circular object could have changed. Also have you allowed that it may not be a perfect formed circle, do not forget it was hand made. Also it says the brim was like a cup. A cup has a lip.

1 Kings 7
26 And 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.

[Jo Freddie]

Originally Posted by Lisa H

The way in measuring of a circular object could have changed. Also have you allowed that it may not be a perfect formed circle, do not forget it was hand made.

But it does not say

23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was almost round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

You are adding the interpretation that it was not actually round.

Also it says the brim was like a cup. A cup has a lip.

1 Kings 7
26 And 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.

That still leaves the need to interpret what the measurements are referring to, but the LBC line is that the KJV-CFT does not require, and is not open to, interpretation.

Just what has a diameter of 10 cubits?

1. The inside of the vessel.
2. The outside of the vessel.
3. The inside of the brim.
4. The outside of the brim.

Just what has a circumference of 30 cubits?

1. The inside of the vessel.
2. The outside of the vessel.
3. The inside of the brim.
4. The outside of the brim.

[Lisa H]

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

But it does not say
You are adding the interpretation that it was not actually round.

That still leaves the need to interpret what the measurements are referring to, but the LBC line is that the KJV-CFT does not require, and is not open to, interpretation.

Just what has a diameter of 10 cubits?

1. The inside of the vessel.
2. The outside of the vessel.
3. The inside of the brim.
4. The outside of the brim.

Just what has a circumference of 30 cubits?

1. The inside of the vessel.
2. The outside of the vessel.
3. The inside of the brim.
4. The outside of the brim.

Almost round would mean not perfect round. Even you would have to agree with that. Also I said, the measuring of a circular object may have changed.

[Jo Freddie]

Originally Posted by Lisa H

Almost round would mean not perfect round. Even you would have to agree with that.

That is the point I was making when I added the word almost, hence in bold red, if it said that I would have less of a point, but it says "it was round"

Also I said, the measuring of a circular object may have changed.

So it is you interpretation of the passage that "god" was referring to some different form of geometry to that which we know of today?

[Lisa H]

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

That is the point I was making when I added the word almost, hence in bold red, if it said that I would have less of a point, but it says "it was round"

So it is you interpretation of the passage that "god" was referring to some different form of geometry to that which we know of today?

Is this one of your loop arguments again. I just gave you possible options that may throw out the way you are interpreting the Bible.

[Jo Freddie]

Originally Posted by Lisa H

Is this one of your loop arguments again. I just gave you possible options that may throw out the way you are interpreting the Bible.

Those possible options are based on making some form of interpretation. I have no argument with the possible options you give, just the fact that you need to make some form of interpretation to make the passage work.

The ambiguities would not be a problem if you accept that it is a book written by a bunch of chasers a few thousand years ago, but that is not what the LBC claims the KJV-CFT to be, they claim it to be the perfect word of "god" with no ambiguities and not in need of any form of interpretation.

[Lisa H]

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

Those possible options are based on making some form of interpretation. I have no argument with the possible options you give, just the fact that you need to make some form of interpretation to make the passage work.

The ambiguities would not be a problem if you accept that it is a book written by a bunch of chasers a few thousand years ago, but that is not what the LBC claims the KJV-CFT to be, they claim it to be the perfect word of "god" with no ambiguities and not in need of any form of interpretation.

Why don't you build a molten sea with the details given to prove them wrong.