Some people have argued that the Bible cannot be inerrant because of the following verse:

1 Kings 7:23-26 - "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits 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 in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths."

From the Jewish Bible:

"He made the cast metal "Sea" circular, seventeen-and-a-half feet from rim to rim, eight-and-three quarter feet high and fifty-two-and-a-half feet in circumference."

***(52.5/17.5) still = 3***

"Under its rim, three hundred gourds encircled it in two rows; they were cast when the Sea was cast.

It rested on twelve oxen, three looking north, three looking west, three looking south, and three looking east, all with their hindquarters toward the center. The Sea was set on top of them.

It was a handbreadth thick, its rim was made like the rim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; and its capacity was 11,000 gallons."

quote:

---

For those that consider these verses proof that the Bible is fallible, please review the following website for a logical, mathematical explanation of why that assumption is incorrect:

ON THE RABBINICAL EXEGESIS OF AN ENHANCED BIBLICAL VALUE OF PI.

---

According to my Strong's Concordance, the following units of measurement in Hebrew are:

- 1 Handbreadth = 3 inches
- 1 Cubit = 1.5 feet
- 1 Bath = 6 gallons

This means that the bath was 15 feet from rim to rim, 45 feet in circumference, and 7.5 feet tall.

When plotted, this does not make a perfect circle.

quote:

---

For any circle, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is pi, meaning:

c / d = pi

In this circle:

c = 45
d = 15

meaning,

45 / 15 = 3

3 /= pi

Therefore this cannot be a circle.

---

The author of the scripture described it as "circular", not "a perfect circle."

This exposes a flaw in the logic on the part of the skeptic, since they have falsely assumed that the scripture gives information that it clearly does not.

The author of 1 Kings (whom Jews believe to be Jeremiah) was not trying to prove that Pi was anything, let alone 3. Nor was it implied that the term "circular" represented a perfect circle, which you'd have to assume if you're going to claim that this scripture contains a mathematical flaw, thus disproving Biblical inerrancy.

The burden of proof is on the skeptic. Claims of factual inaccuracy are dubious at best, since I did a simple internet search and found an explanation of the mathematics of the scripture in 1 Kings easily.

Unfortunately, I don't base my disbelief in God on the mathematics displayed in the Bible.

If I was so fascinated with geometry that I'd base my belief system on such, I'd probably join Neopythagoreanism instead of Christianity.

That wasn't the point of this thread.

The point is, the math given in 1 Kings 7:23 doesn't prove that the Bible is fallible, because the math is not trying to prove that pi=3.

This gives the skeptic one less reason to disbelieve in God, since the Bible is the only tangible proof we have of His existence, aside from creation itself.

If it is perfect, as He says it is, there is no reason to disbelieve God, because the proof is in the pudding.

You could willfully reject Him, but to disbelieve based on the Bible's fallibility is not possible, because it is inerrant.

Lets stone some infidels.

I'd prefer conversion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
to disbelieve based on the Bible's fallibility is not possible, because it is inerrant.

---

...ROFL.

Ok, Digital, answer me this:
I'm sure your aware of the discrepancies between the story of the nativity in Matthew and Luke. Matthew says evil King Herod ordered all the babies to die. Luke doesn't mention Herod or his death order against babies at all.

Here's the discrepancy I'd like you to unravel:
Matthew 2:13-15
13And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

So Joseph and Mary fled in the night to Egypt, where they remained until Herod died. This happened right after the magi had departed (beginning of verse 13).
However:
Luke 2:21-24
21And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord 24And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

This says (and this conforms with Jewish custom), that Jesus was taken to Jerusalem 8 days after he was born to be circumcised.
Furthermore:
Luke 2:39
39And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Joseph and Mary took Jesus straight from Jerusalem to Nazareth. No Egypt there! Read the filler in between if you like; it's not there!

I ask you, Digital, where was Jesus 8 days after he was born? In Jerusalem being circumcised? Or in Egypt hiding from Herod?

Elephantitis Man, this thread is dealing with PI in the BIBLE.

Please create other threads for the topics you have posted.

I don't want this thread to be derailed.

Thank you.

Actually, I will create it for you.

Matthew and Luke were 2 different people, and they both had different perspectives on what was happening. When you have more than 1 person describing something they saw, you have slight differences.

The differences were not based on perspective, since both accounts were inspired by God, and therefore there is no room for contradiction, even if the account comes from two separate sources.

I REFUTE THE "CONTRADICTION" HERE.

The fact that the vessel was not perfectly shaped (according to you), already proves that the bible contains error in its description of the shape.

The fact that the value of pi it implies is an approximation of pi, according to the article you linked to -- and not the true value of pi -- also means the bible contains error.

You have admitted that the bible contains error. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-17-2006).]

My bath isn't 6 gallons.

Your argument is flawed.

IT NEVER SAYS IT WAS A CIRCLE, only that it was circular in shape. It was roundish, its like your trying to draw a circle on a piece of paper without a compass.

You're grasping at straws.

Circular:

"1.
a) having the form of a circle
b) moving in or describing a circle or spiral

2.
a) of or relating to a circle or its mathematical properties.
b)having a circular base or bases"
- Merriam Webster.

Take whichever of those definitions you like, it still describes a circle. One which must fulfill the properties already mentioned.

More importantly, you completely ignore the fact that it gives a circumference and diameter! It must be describing a circle because those two parameters do just that: describe a circle!

You are grasping at straws by claiming that it was a perfect circle (pi) to begin with, when clearly the measurements prove that the bath was never a perfect circle.

The claim was never made that the bath had anything to do with perfect circles, or pi.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rust:
The fact that the vessel was not perfectly shaped (according to you), already proves that the bible contains error in its description of the shape.

---

Wrong. It gives the measurements of the bath, which was described as circular. Anything else concluded beyond that originates from the reader, not from the text.

You see a flaw, because you have inserted information that was not given.

All you have is an assumption, at best.

A circular vessel certainly does NOT have to be a perfect circle.

quote:

---

The fact that the value of pi it implies is an [b]approximation of pi, according to the article you linked to -- and not the true value of pi -- also means the bible contains error.[/b]

---

Where is the implication that the value of pi has ANYTHING to do with the scripture ?

Even if we follow your logic, and the logic of the mathematician that wrote the Exegesis, the error is not in the Bible, but in Jewish mathematics, at the time that the bath was constructed.

It was an eye-witness account of the temple of Solomon, not a lecture on the value of pi.

There is still no Biblical flaw.

quote:

---

You have admitted that the bible contains error. Thank you.

---

I have admitted nothing of the sort, because the scripture and the evidence does not support that conclusion.

Only bias and stubborness arrive you to that conclusion.

Thank you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
You are grasping at straws by claiming that it was a perfect circle (pi) to begin with, when clearly the measurements prove that the bath was never a perfect circle.

The claim was never made that the bath had anything to do with perfect circles, or pi.

---

No. I'm not grasping at straws at all. If anybody is doing so, it is you and Dragonsthrone.

1. For it to be circular to begin with it must have the properties of a circle, one of which is that its circumference is pi times its diameter. If a shape does not have that property, then it isn't a circle, period. You cannot even say "it isn't a perfect circle" because it isn't a circle at all, let alone an imperfect one (whatever the hell that means).

The fact that mathematicians/teachers still call shapes which do not follow that exact same property, "circles", only points to a wilful error mathematicians/teachers are willing to make for the sake of convenience. Yet the fact remains that a circle must fulfill the characteristic mentioned above, and what the bible describes simply does not.

2. The very fact that the bible is describing the creation of a circular object which is not a "perfect circle" (it's not a circle to being with but I'm entertaining that phrase here) would mean the bible has described a circular object imperfectly. Thus, again, containing error.

3. You already provided the value of pi (as given in the link you cited); as such, you believe the bible does in fact give a value of pi - directly or indirectly. If you do so, and if the value it gives is an estimation
(as your own links acknowledges), then it contains error by definition, and thus, yet again, the bible is proven to be fallible.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-17-2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
Wrong. It gives the measurements of the bath, which was described as circular. Anything else concluded beyond that originates from the reader, not from the text.

You see a flaw, because you have inserted information that was not given.

All you have is an assumption, at best.

A circular vessel certainly does NOT have to be a perfect circle.

---

The vessel must be circular, and it isn't if it does not describe a circle. That's the point, which you missed. If it is describing a "imperfect circle" then it describes something both imperfect, and not circular at all, which means it contains error.

quote:

---

Where is the implication that the value of pi has ANYTHING to do with the scripture ?

Even if we follow your logic, and the logic of the mathematician that wrote the Exegesis, the error is not in the Bible, but in Jewish mathematics, at the time that the bath was constructed.

It was an eye-witness account of the temple of Solomon, not a lecture on the value of pi.

There is still no Biblical flaw.

---

The value of pi has everything to do with the scripture since that is exactly what determines if the shape being built is circular or not. If it does not follow the quality of its circumference being pi times its diameter, then it is not circular in shape and therefore the bible contains error - which is central to your beliefs.

Moreover, the fact that it isn't a treatise on pi does not mean anything at all. It's still an error.

quote:

---

I have admitted nothing of the sort, because the scripture and the evidence does not support that conclusion.

Only bias and stubborness arrive you to that conclusion.

Thank you.

---

You might not have admitted it in words, since you're unable to (ironic that you talk about stubborness), but the logical conclusion of what you stated is that exactly. The very fact that you cite an articles which shows how the value of pi in the bible is an estimation, already proves that it contains error - which is why you ignored that part of what I said compeltely.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-17-2006).]

Score- Rust:1 DS:-2

Keep up the good work, although she is too blind to actually know that evertime she posts she just makes an ass out of herself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
The burden of proof is on the skeptic.

---

It is?

quote:

---

Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (See also Deut. 14:7)

---

But actually, hares don't chew cud. The follow is the only defence I have found for this error:

quote:

---

However, the Hebrew phrase for �chew the cud� simply means �raising up what has been swallowed�. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed �raise up what has been swallowed�. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

---

Pretty weak. We just have to take their word about the Hebrew (and why didn't the professionals who translated it translate it differently, then?), and eating what you have actually passed down is not the same at all as regurgitation. Clutching at straws, as you say. "Well, it's essentially the same... even Linnaeus got it wrong [and lots of other things, actually]..."

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 03-17-2006).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rust:
You might not have admitted it in words, since you're unable to (ironic that you talk about stubborness), but the logical conclusion of what you stated is that exactly. The very fact that you cite an articles which shows how the value of pi in the bible is an estimation, already proves that it contains error - which is why you ignored that part of what I said compeltely.

---

A circle does not have to be a perfect circle, in order to recognize it as 'circular.' In fact, I'm willing to bet that you have never drawn a perfect circle, because its such a rarity to actually do so. A true circle is taken lightly, but it really is an achievement. But we don't question whether ir not we can recognize if you can draw a 'O' or '0'. Neither should you question the verse because it is speaking in terms of non-linear proportions, or at the very least, that it wasn't angular. Its being descriptive so we can understand what was made in honor of Yahweh. Aside from that, the value of pi was already understood prior to Euclidean geometry. The way you make it sound, was as if they had no concept of it during the time this was written. Pi was first seen in Egypt, which is understood to be the progenitor of Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek geometry. Its been said that the Pyramid of Giza equals pi, not in its linear state, but that the measurments come out as equaling 3.14. Personally, I'm not as mathematically inclined as I wish to be. Nontheless, it doesn't take a mathematician to know that circular does not have to denote perfection.
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/Gpyr.html


The point being, Solomon never said anything about a perfect circle, or gave the measurment of pi. I'm not sure how you've come to the deduction that it presents a problem in Biblical terms of errancy or inerrancy. But even supposing that Solomon intended to make a perfect circle, (which he probably did), how does that affect the meaning of the passage as it relates to God? Man is fallible. God is not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
A circle does not have to be a perfect circle, in order to recognize it as 'circular.' In fact, I'm willing to bet that you have never drawn a perfect circle, because its such a rarity to actually do so. A true circle is taken lightly, but it really is an achievement. But we don't question whether ir not we can recognize if you can draw a 'O' or '0'. Neither should you question the verse because it is speaking in terms of non-linear proportions, or at the very least, that it wasn't angular. Its being descriptive so we can understand what was made in honor of Yahweh. Aside from that, the value of pi was already understood prior to Euclidean geometry. The way you make it sound, was as if they had no concept of it during the time this was written. Pi was first seen in Egypt, which is understood to be the progenitor of Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek geometry. Its been said that the Pyramid of Giza equals pi, not in its linear state, but that the measurments come out as equaling 3.14. Personally, I'm not as mathematically inclined as I wish to be. Nontheless, it doesn't take a mathematician to know that circular does not have to denote perfection.

---

1. The term "circular" denotes, as I showed in a previous post, something having the form of a circle, and/or it's properties. Thus, the property of its circumference being pi times its diameter, is an absolute requirement. If it does not conform to that property then it cannot have the form of a circle, nor the properties of a circle.

2. You're making the erroneous claim that a "imperfect circle" is a circle, which it is not. If it is imperfect because it does not conform to the properties of what a circle entails (which is the case here), then it is not a circle by definition! You're simply adding the modifier "imperfect" to somehow justify the error; in doing so, you're refuting that it is a circle to being with as it clearly does not have neither circular form nor circular properties.

To use an analogy: by your logic, a shape with three vertices which total 181 degrees is an "imperfect triangle". That's completely ludicrous. It's not a triangle - let alone an "imperfect one" - because its vertices do not sum up to 180 degrees which is exactly what a triangle is!

The same applies here. Something circular must have the properties of a circle, properties which do not include "almost being a circle... but not really". If the shape being describe does not conform with the property of circumference being equal to its diameter, then it is not a circular at all.


3. I know that a more accurate number of pi was know before hand. My argument doesn't rest on the Hebrews not knowing the value for pi, but of the bible either giving an erroneous value for pi, or an erroneous values of the circumference/diameter.

quote:

---

The point being, Solomon never said anything about a perfect circle, or gave the measurment of pi. I'm not sure how you've come to the deduction that it presents a problem in Biblical terms of errancy or inerrancy. But even supposing that Solomon intended to make a perfect circle, (which he probably did), how does that affect the meaning of the passage as it relates to God? Man is fallible. God is not.

---

1. It gives the measurement of pi implicitly.

2. It has everything to do with biblical 'inerrancy' because the Bible is asserting something is a circle when it clearly is not.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-17-2006).]

quote:

---

3 /= pi

---

Does (3 /= pi) == 0.95238095238095

Isn't it true that every measurement has some error? In the chemical industry you pay for the 9's that follow 99%.

You're making the erroneous claim that a "imperfect circle" is a circle, which it is not. If it is imperfect because it does not conform to the properties of what a circle entails (which is the case here), then it is not a circle by definition! You're simply adding the modifier "imperfect" to somehow justify the error; in doing so, you're refuting that it is a circle to being with as it clearly does not have neither circular form nor circular properties.

I'm not making any error. By your logic, if I asked you to draw me a circle, but you couldn't do it perfectly, would I somehow not understand that what you drew was circular? Since when does a perfect circle have to be drawn, or fashioned through metalurgy for someone to understand the concept of 'circular?'

To use an analogy: by your logic, a shape with three vertices which total 181 degrees is an "imperfect triangle". That's completely ludicrous. It's not a triangle - let alone an "imperfect one" - because its vertices do not sum up to 180 degrees which is exactly what a triangle is!

Equilateral triangle, Isosceles triangle, Right-Angled triangle, and a Scalene triangles are all different triangles, but they are still triangles, and we still understand that its a triangle. The only thing important is that it has 3 (tri) sides.

All that triangle means is that there are 3-sides of some defintie linear angles, unlike something that is circular.

An equilateral triangle has 3 sides and their lengths are equal on all three sides.
Since all the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees then 180 divided by 3 must equal 60 degrees. The scalene triangle has no sides of equal length and no angles the same. There are four different kinds trianlges, but we know what you mean by drawing a triangle. It doesn't need to have perfectly congruant sides to understand what a triangle means. Neither do we need to have a perfect circle to understand what circular means.

1. It gives the measurement of pi implicitly.

It didn't imply anything. It gave you the measurments, and that's it. How you came up with this theory that it had to equal pi is of your own accord.

2. It has everything to do with biblical 'inerrancy' because the Bible is asserting something is a circle when it clearly is not.

No, if it said, "And thou shalt fashion Me a perfect circle" ....... Then I would say, "Yeah, Rust has a point here."

quote:

---

Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I'm not making any error. By your logic, if I asked you to draw me a circle, but you couldn't do it perfectly, would I somehow not understand that what you drew was circular? Since when does a perfect circle have to be drawn, or fashioned through metalurgy for someone to understand the concept of 'circular?'

---

Like I said, we label things that are not truly circles as "circles" for convenience. That does not refute the fact that they are not strictly circles. We allow that because of convenience, brevity and ease, and since humanity does not claim to be omnipotent and infallible, errors are allowed.

The bible, however, claims to be infallible, and thus any error, however minor, would refute its infallibility. The fact that it describes a shape as circular, when it clearly is not, means that it has comitted an error.

quote:

---

Equilateral triangle, Isosceles triangle, Right-Angled triangle, and a Scalene triangles are all different triangles, but they are still triangles, and we still understand that its a triangle. The only thing important is that it has 3 (tri) sides.

All that triangle means is that there are 3-sides of some defintie linear angles, unlike something that is circular.

An equilateral triangle has 3 sides and their lengths are equal on all three sides.
Since all the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees then 180 divided by 3 must equal 60 degrees. The scalene triangle has no sides of equal length and no angles the same. There are four different kinds trianlges, but we know what you mean by drawing a triangle. It doesn't need to have perfectly congruant sides to understand what a triangle means. Neither do we need to have a perfect circle to understand what circular means.

---

You evaded my point completely.

I understand that we can have different triangles with differing angles in their vertices; the key point being that we can have them if and only if their vertices sum to a total of 180 degrees.

Similarly, we can have circles of differing sizes with differing central points, yet only if and only if their circumference is equal to pi times its diameter. The shape being described in the bible simply does not conform to that property, hence it is not circular in shape. Period.

quote:

---

It didn't imply anything. It gave you the measurments, and that's it. How you came up with this theory that it had to equal pi is of your own accord.

---

If it gives the measurements of diameter and circumference then it has given pi implicitly since pi equals C/d.

So by stating both parameters it has also given the value of pi implicitly. Thus, if we take those values as true, then the value of pi is wrong. If we assume the value of pi it is using is right, then the values it gave for the diameter/circumference are wrong.

quote:

---

2.
No, if it said, "And thou shalt fashion Me a perfect circle" ....... Then I would say, "Yeah, Rust has a point here."

---

No. If it says a shape is circular, when it clearly is not, then it has everything to do with biblical errancy.

Again, a shape which does not conform to the peropeties and/or form of a circle, is not circular. The shape described as "circular" in the bible, does not conform to that property, hence it is not circular.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-18-2006).]

Digi isn't saying that it's describing an "imperfect circle" as Rust seems to think. The verse is describing an ellipse, which, as we all know, is circular-shaped.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haddock:
Digi isn't saying that it's describing an "imperfect circle" as Rust seems to think. The verse is describing an ellipse, which, as we all know, is circular-shaped.

---

I can't believe I read this thread. It's a waste of time to argue points as silly as this. However, for the record, the phrase "seventeen-and-a-half feet from rim to rim" is incredibly misleading if the rim to rim distance varies, as it would in an ellipse.

Can someone find some elliptical pottery from this era? If I recall correctly, by the time pottery was getting this large, it was wheel spun, and thus circular, not elliptical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rust:
Again, a shape which does not conform to the peropeties and/or form of a circle, is not circular. The shape described as "circular" in the bible, does not conform to that property, hence it is not circular.

---

CIRCULAR

1. Of or relating to a circle.
2. Shaped like or nearly like a circle; round.
3. Moving in or forming a circle.
4. Circuitous; roundabout: took a circular route to the office.

CIRCULAR

1A. Having the form of a circle : ROUND
1B. Moving in or describing a circle or spiral
3A. Of or relating to a circle or its mathematical properties <a circular arc>
3B. Having a circular base or bases <a circular cylinder>
4. CIRCUITOUS, INDIRECT
5. Marked by or moving in a cycle


Man, the dictionaries seem to get you every time, don't they ?

Clearly, for something to be described as "circular", it is not REQUIRED that it be a perfect circle.

So, now we're supposed to govern our perception of the Bible's infallability on Rust's rules, and not God's !!

Sorry, but the purpose of that scripture was not prove anything mathematical, nor suggest that a circle is equal to anything less than Pi.

The purpose of the scripture was to give the measurements for a circular shaped bath in Solomon's temple. That's it.

You can read into it all you like, but it contains no mathematical error, since no mathematical equation was presented.

It also does not contain an error regarding "shapes", since the usage of the word "circular" could mean anything from oval to circle.

When I see the world "circular", I think of something "round". If the author intended us to think of a "perfect circle", he would have said so.

Do you ever admit it when you are wrong, man ?

It's truly pathetic how far you are taking this, when there are much better examples in the Bible you could use to try and prove it imperfect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsaxton14:
I can't believe I read this thread. It's a waste of time to argue points as silly as this.

---

It's not silly to prove the Bible is inerrant.

quote:

---

However, for the record, the phrase "seventeen-and-a-half feet from rim to rim" is incredibly misleading if the rim to rim distance varies, as it would in an ellipse.

---

Being that the measurement from rim to rim was actually 15 feet, I don't see why we should answer anything you ask, since you can't seem to pay attention to the details.

quote:

---

Can someone find some elliptical pottery from this era? If I recall correctly, by the time pottery was getting this large, it was wheel spun, and thus circular, not elliptical.

---

If you had read the scripture posted, you would know the bath wasn't "pottery".

It was made of cast metal.

Haddock built a program to plot the ellipse based on the measurements given in the scripture.

The bath would have looked like THIS.

I would call that "circular", or an "ellipse", or an "oval".

Here's the code so you can check it, if you feel it is necessary to do so:

Private Sub Pic_Click()
pic.Cls
a = 15
b = 45 / 3.1415 / a * 4
c = 3.1415 * a * b / 4
pic.Print "circumference:" + Str(c)
pic.Print "minor axis:" + Str(Round(b, 2))
pic.Print "major axis:" + Str(a)
For i = 0 To 6.29 Step 0.01
lastx = newx
lasty = newy
newx = 25 + b * Cos(i)
newy = 25 + 15 * Sin(i)
If lastx Then pic.Line (lastx, lasty)-(newx, newy)
Next i
pic.ForeColor = vbRed
pic.Line (25, 10)-(25, 40)
pic.ForeColor = vbBlue
pic.Line ((25 - b), 25)-((25 + b), 25)
End Sub

Ok, let's settle this little diction dispute. The word used for round in the passage is agol. This does not automatically imply a perfect circle unless there are qualifiers added. Elipses and ovoid shapes may also be described by this adjective. It appears in the phrase "the world is round" or 'Ha Olam Agol.' The earth is in fact not a perfect sphere, but an ovoid. In another instance of its usage, in the Book of the Ten Sefiros, it is used with qualifiers to convey perfection. In Sefer Sefiros 1:4 it is written that the "place of Halal was Agol on every side, and completely even." Later in that very passage, the shape of the Ein Sof is described using a different word "Igul" conveying the same shape, but this word needs no qualifiers to imply perfection, because it means that there are no angles within it. If the verse had said that the sea was an Igul, rather than being merely Agol, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
[B] It's not silly to prove the Bible is inerrant.B]

---

It is HOWEVER, silly to think that the bible is real.

It's real, whether it's the word of God or not. Ask any publisher...they've sold millions of them !

As a side note, I am so impressed by your 14-year-old-ness.

and I am so impressed by your argumentum ad populum.

Thesaurus.com States:

Main Entry: Real
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: genuine
Synonyms: absolute, actual, authentic
Antonyms: false, imaginary

When I used the word real, I used it with those definitions in mind. As in the bible is a false story.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth, you, you, 14 year old. Spare me the petty insults, as I know what age I am, and it's not 14.

I know what you meant, jackass.

Learn how to take a joke.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fundokiller:
and I am [b]so impressed by your argumentum ad populum.[/B]

---

Why thank you !

I don't give out autographs on Sunday, so kindly remove your lips from my....*coughs*

Learn how to not be so blind and brainwashed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apoxyus:
Learn how to not be so blind and brainwashed?

---

If Digi were so brainwashed and blind, how is it that she makes you and your cronies look so silly?

If you want to have a debate, then debate. We don't need your childish hyperbole or rhetoric for you to make a point -a valid point.

It is possible to be quasi respectful and still not agree.