Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigger Jim
The King James Bible is the Word of God and perfect. If you see a contradiction it is merely man's inability to grasp, or an agenda, etc etc.
|
Right - so my point is you often NEED science/reason to realise that you haven't grasped god's word correctly, and to guide you to the correct interpretation.
Quote:
|
State your end game with me, and we will proceed.
|
I'm atheist, obviously, but I don't harbour any illusions about converting you. My "agenda" is perhaps just to see if our worldviews can be at all reconciled. I'm interested in religion as a historical and philosophical study... Like you might be interested in Egyptian mythology, perhaps. My initial post was just pointing out something I found fascinating bc I'm interested in both mathematics and religion/philosophy and hadn't been aware of this intersection of the two of them previously.
Quote:
because you taking a passage like the one that started this thread to try to prove that the Bible is wrong now contradicts your words, or makes you guilty of what you just said people do.
unless you are willing to agree that you misinterpreted the
|
Well, I'm atheist, so for me it's not a question of interpreting the bible correctly, but rather of whether there is a viable interpretation that can reconcile the bible with science/logic. I realise that this discussion frame is a non-starter for you though, so I'm happy to talk in terms of correct interpretations.
On this passage, I don't think you have a correct interpretation. If the vessel was intended to be circular then Hiram can't have been filled with knowledge and wisdom as claimed, because elementary tools that would've been known and available to him at the time would have rendered a more perfect circle than what was described (if the diameter was 10 cubits then his 'circumference' was out by almost 2ft... ). Somebody mentioned before you came in that perhaps the vessel wasn't a circle at all - maybe it was an oval/ellipse, or egg shaped, or some other shape that's not a circle but doesn't contradict the description given. I think it's out of place that there wouldn't be more description of this shape, but it's a more viable interpretation than a wonky circle. What do you think?
Gay.