Re: Inspiration and Authority (was: Non-truths that do not transform)

Vernon,

You write:

 Let me give you an example of this less-than-
candid approach (brought to the attention of this forum a year or so ago).

 It concerns 1Kings 7:23 where some details of Solomon's 'molten sea' are provided - this taking the form of a large cylindrical brazen laver intended to meet the requirements of temple worship. On the basis of this description many people (Jews and Christians included) have been led to understand that the temple builders assumed the value of the universal constant _pi_ to be 3 rather than 3.14159... and conclude that the Scriptures must therefore be unreliable. However, in their haste to reach this
conclusion, they ignore a further significant detail given a few verses later, viz "And it (the cylindrical laver) was an
handbreadth thick..." In other words, as one might have expected, this cylinder has both internal and external
diameters (d and D, say) and internal and external circumferences (c and C, say). Whilst c/d = C/D = 3, the
ambiguity built into the text allows us to say C/d = 3.14... Further, it would indeed be very strange if an engineer of
Solomon's day, with both Egypt and Babylon on his doorstep, would readily tolerate an error of 4.5% in the value of
_pi_ .

In my view, such display of _wilful ignorance_ is deplorable and betrays the real intentions of those who indulge in it.

It seems to me that there may be something other than "wilful ignorance" here. Like (1) simple uncertainty as to the exact shape of the molten sea or (2) a different view of how dimensions are reported in 1 Kings than we are used to in our "scientific" age. The translation I just read (CEV) describes the Sea as "seven and a half feet deep, about fifteen feet across, and forty-five feet around" and, in v26, "The sides of the bowl were four inches thick..." Now "sides" suggests a cylindrical shape, but does not guarantee it, and "bowl" suggests a possibly different shape. Specifying dimensions "across" and "around" also suggests a circular shape, but also does not guarantee it.

There is a problem with your algebra. You have:

   d: internal diameter
   D: external diameter
   c: internal circumference
   C: external circumference

and then state c/d=C/D=3 while C/d=3.14. Just not so. If indeed the shape was of a right circular cylinder, then
c/d and C/D would have the same value, but that would be pi. To get something that pretty well approximates pi, one must take C/d, suggesting that "across" really means "across on the inside" and "around" really means
"around on the outside", which seems like a curious use of the terms. And while that ratio (C/d) comes out close to pi, that is not what one would expect from the assumed geometry. It is also interesting to compute the volume of the Sea. As a gallon is 231 cubic inches, a cubic foot is about 7.48 gallons; taking the "across" as an inside dimension, and the "deep" also as an inside dimension, and again assuming a right circular cylinder, I get about 1385 cubic feet, or about 9900 gallons; the capacity is described in v26 as "about eleven thousand gallons." Here we seem to be about 10% "off", although we may not be sure of the translations of Old Testament units into contemporary English or metric units.

I don't really want to carry this further - we can make different assumptions about shapes, where dimensions are measured, and come up with all sorts of "interesting" results. But there are a lot of assumptions behind any of these. It seems to me that Scripture uses a variety of styles and forms to express what is has to say; sometimes numerical values are significant, and sometimes they are not. It seems to me that this is one of the places where the exact value is not of highest significance - we are not, after all, being given the job of rebuilding the Sea, but only are having it described to us. I do not think this is "inaccuracy" in a way that we can fault, and use to justify a discarding of Scripture as erroneous: were we to do that, we would similarly have to discard any use of pi
or e or sqrt(2) as erroneous, since these and a whole host of other numbers cannot be exactly expressed as
any finite string of digits in an integer based number system. Is God lying to use because He does not tell us the exact value of pi? I think not.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Vernon Jenkins
  To: CMSharp01@aol.com
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 5:28 PM
  Subject: Inspiration and Authority (was: Non-truths that do not transform)

  Hi Christopher,

  You wrote (3rd May):

  So obviously you accept geocentricism, unless you want to reject the authority of
  the Bible, or rather what you think is the authority of the Bible.

  He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever.
  - Psalm 104:5

  The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
  - Psalm 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30

  For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them.
  - 1 Samuel 2:8

  Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the
  Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, sun stand
  thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, moon upon Ajalon - Joshua 10:12

  Note that Joshua tells the sun to stop moving, not the earth to stop rotating on its
  axis. If you reject this, then you are contradicting your own dogmatic interpretation
  of Sola Scripture, and using modern science.

  I can't agree with your suggestion that 'geocentrism' and 'flat earth' are _taught_ in the Scriptures for, in my view,
  neither has the clear backing of divine authority (for reasons that I outline below). However, regarding the former (and
  having in mind the unexpected outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiments), I am prepared to believe that
  geocentrism might conceivably be true, for I am not aware of any published refutation of that possibility. The latter, of
  course, I reject out of hand.

  The Apostle Paul states categorically that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." - but offers no explanation
  as to how this process works out in practice. Nevertheless, as Christians, I believe it is important that we seriously
  consider this matter and hammer out some reasonable suggestions. So let me first offer the view that God did not
  _usually_ dictate words directly to His chosen authors. However, there are, notable instances of His so doing - as, for
  example, the Creation Narrative, parts of the Flood Narrative, the form of the High Priest's breastplate, the Ten Commandments, and so on. But outside of these it appears that those who received such _inspiration_ were free to
  express themselves naturally. In my view, we must therefore expect there to be some _noise_ in the biblical text as, for example, evidence of the writer's world view and his understanding of the cosmos (most probably that generally held by the people of his day). I suggest it is hardly reasonable that these views of the human author should be regarded as part of the _divine message_, and completely agree with whoever it was who recently wrote words to the effect, "The Bible is not a
  scientific textbook."

  As I see it, to reduce the possibility of error we need to read God's Word _honestly_, _intelligently_ and with an
  _open mind_. I say this because in my experience many people (Christians included!) appear to delight in exposing
  some supposed error in the scriptural text. (This, of course, should cause little surprise because, according to this same
  Book, we are all enemies of God - even after conversion, apparently.) Let me give you an example of this less-than-
  candid approach (brought to the attention of this forum a year or so ago).

   It concerns 1Kings 7:23 where some details of Solomon's 'molten sea' are provided - this taking the form of a large cylindrical brazen laver intended to meet the requirements of temple worship. On the basis of this description many people (Jews and Christians included) have been led to understand that the temple builders assumed the value of the universal constant _pi_ to be 3 rather than 3.14159... and conclude that the Scriptures must therefore be unreliable. However, in their haste to reach this
  conclusion, they ignore a further significant detail given a few verses later, viz "And it (the cylindrical laver) was an
  handbreadth thick..." In other words, as one might have expected, this cylinder has both internal and external
  diameters (d and D, say) and internal and external circumferences (c and C, say). Whilst c/d = C/D = 3, the
  ambiguity built into the text allows us to say C/d = 3.14... Further, it would indeed be very strange if an engineer of
  Solomon's day, with both Egypt and Babylon on his doorstep, would readily tolerate an error of 4.5% in the value of
  _pi_ .

  In my view, such display of _wilful ignorance_ is deplorable and betrays the real intentions of those who indulge in it.

  Finally, I suggest we can never conclude that our Sovereign Creator has made mistakes or has sought to mislead in
  His solemn revelation to man - for this would destroy the basis of our Christian faith - and, in particular, would raise
  serious doubts about what has been accomplished on our behalf at Calvary.

  Vernon
  www.otherbiblecode.com
Received on Mon May 9 20:21:41 2005