Can Science and Christianity be compatible? LPoT vs SoR. Also open to others.

[Yttrium]

I like lilpixieofterror's argument here.

Sound reasoning.

[NormATive]

Yes, I would have to say that I agree with L-POT in this argument so far.

Since the Bible was written by ordinary men (albeit, poets, philosophers, etc..), one wouldn't expect them to have knowledge beyond the known world at that time, just as scientists in our own time have evolved in their understanding of the observable world. L-POT is correct, I think.

It also explains why it contradicts itself so often, and appears to reflect a god that seems to evolve (from stern law-giver to compassionate father-figure). It's not that the deity itself is evolving, or is inconsistent - the writers themselves are evolving and incorporating this thought progression into the unfolding story of their god. And, since none of us is ever truly always consistent, why should we expect a collection of writings written by disparate poets and thinkers over a 2,000 year time span to be somehow, magically homogenous?

NORM

[Tassman]

Yes, I would have to say that I agree with L-POT in this argument so far.

Since the Bible was written by ordinary men (albeit, poets, philosophers, etc..), one wouldn't expect them to have knowledge beyond the known world at that time, just as scientists in our own time have evolved in their understanding of the observable world. L-POT is correct, I think.

It also explains why it contradicts itself so often, and appears to reflect a god that seems to evolve (from stern law-giver to compassionate father-figure). It's not that the deity itself is evolving, or is inconsistent - the writers themselves are evolving and incorporating this thought progression into the unfolding story of their god. And, since none of us is ever truly always consistent, why should we expect a collection of writings written by disparate poets and thinkers over a 2,000 year time span to be somehow, magically homogenous?

NORM

So basically you're saying that the bible is allegory and metaphor, which I would agree with.

[NormATive]

So basically you're saying that the bible is allegory and metaphor, which I would agree with.

It's not what I am saying - it's what L-POT is saying, however; I don't think she is aware of it yet.

NORM

[NormATive]

I don't think that the Bible is only allegory and metaphor. Sure, it contains that in spades, but I think it really is a collection of thoughts and imaginings of what people think / thought in their minds about the world around them.

As human thought evolves, so does the concept of deity - to the point where it is no longer needed to explain everything.

NORM

[rogue06]

Key term is 'basic' and the general education level is another important part. Now, depending on who you ask, Genesis was written between the 15th century BC to the 5th century BC. Either one of these ranges, puts it before Plato, Aristotle, or Archimedes and the latest date would put it right around the lifetime of Pythagoras. Considering that mathematical or observational evidence that the sun orbited the earth, was over 2,000 years away still; are you really sure about that? Have you ever read the physics models given by Aristotle? His work (which was wrong, on many things) was the science standard right up until the modern era. Likewise, Archimedes was among the most important mathematical and scientific minds, of the ancient world, and he was born in the 3rd century BC (200 to 1,300 years after Genesis was written). Likewise, education of these subjects was only reserved for the rich elites of society and the rest of society didn't even have the ability to read or write, let alone know much about these subjects. Remember, wide spread literacy and education are a modern invention that didn't exist for most of history. Finally, you're assuming that the goal of Genesis was to give a scientific account of how the world and universe was created, but where does Genesis ever say it is a scientific account to begin with? Remember, science is also a modern invention too. Those, who studied the natural sciences, would have been 'natural philosophers' and their version of 'science' is not the same as ours. The Wiki article does give a pretty good summery and the entire book can be found online, if you're interested in ever reading it. Bottom line is I think you're mistake here is the same mistake many YEC's end up making. You're reading Genesis with a modern view in mind and there is simply no reason to read Genesis, with that modern view in mind. The world of Genesis is a far different world than the world of the 21st century west. The modern scientific way you and I see the world was still thousands of years away.



And does that view fit into what ancient people saw? See, in that era, your worshiped the gods of the area that you were in, so if you were in Egypt, you worshiped the Egyptian gods and if you were somewhere else, you worshiped their gods. The Jews seemed to have abandoned that model and thus you, yet again, are trying to read modern standards into an ancient book. Besides, over 90% of the population could not read or write and these stories were likely written down to be read by the priest and the religious leaders (the very few people, of that era, that could read and write). Taken in that light, your argument doesn't make too much sense since writing was only a skill a few people had and ancient customs towards worship are different than modern customs towards worship.



What path did human evolution take? There's different ideas about precisely where modern humans come from. Does that invalidate modern evolution theory? Is string theory true or false? Does that disagreement prove physics is wrong? Name a field and you'll find disagreements among the field. Disagreements do not prove my view is wrong anymore than disagreements among scientist prove science is all wrong. Sorry, but you're not the one that gets to sit upon your judgment seat and cast down judgment and only I need to jump though the hoops that you don't need to jump though yourself. The bottom lines are quite simple. Creation views are not critical to Christianity and if you really need your God to only need a 6,000 year old earth, you must have a pretty tiny God. My view is perfectly consistent with what we know of ancient views of the world as well as how Christians and Jews took the opening chapters of Genesis. There's no nailed down absolute view, from ancient Christians to modern Christians of just how literal Genesis 1 and 2 needs to be. It sounds like to me, you're emotionally invested in the YEC view and need it to be the true view Christians should hold to. Why?



And many theologians do not see it as a problem at all because not all doctrines of original sin are made the same. Some hold the idea that original sin comes not from Adam, but from the devil and humans inherited this sin upon being temped and falling for the temptation. This view would not need a literal Adam and Eve at all and thus the problem can be solved. Again, if you need your God to only exist in a 6,000 year old universe. You must have a pretty tiny God. Christian views upon original sin vary greatly due to the same reasons that it does on creation and that is because the Bible isn't 100% absolute upon how it happened.



Actually, one of the most accurate measurements of Pi, pre-Archimedes, comes from the Bible as this math historian says here. Likewise, Aristotle taught that the universe was always existing while Christian and Jewish though taught the universe was a thing that begun to exist. What view today, is accept science and what view is not? Likewise, James Hannom argues in his book (you can find it here, if you so desire and his web site is here, which includes a link to his blog) argues that it was the Christian view of the world (IE that God is rational and his nature of rationality is part of the universe among us) is responsible for the scientific revolution that was not possible before. In actual truth, you're a little off here too and there is quite a bit that you can thank Christians and the Bible for. Of course, the Bible doesn't mention these specific subjects is because it isn't designed to be a book of science, but a book pointing to the fallen nature of man and how we can find God's saving grace though Christ. As I showed above though, Christian understandings of the world, lead to the scientific understandings that simply were not possible before that moment and attempting to ignore this is silliness, to the nth degree.



Actually, what I have determined is that you seem to be rather emotionally invested in YEC interpretations and seem to come up with some pretty easy to refute objections to it. 1) The Bible was not nor has ever been a scientific text book and to treat it as though it is, is not correct. 2) The concept of original sin, is easy to keep, if you take the idea that it was the devil that sin descended from and the devil was the one that tempted humans and humans failed. Rather this was a literal Adam and Eve or the earliest hominids, is irrelevant to the point. 3) It provided the philosophy that helped us to break away from the Aristotelian scientific views that lead to the genesis (pun intended) of modern science. In conclusion, I think you're conflict here isn't really so much the topic as it seems you really want YEC views to be true. Remember, I've debated YEC's for years and have heard all the stuff you've come up with and dealt with it. YEC also has its own theological problems too, on top of its shaky science, so pretending as though YEC is somehow theologically sound, and TE isn't, isn't the most honest way to approach the topic.



Very well, time to get started. Enjoy.

I strongly suggest that SoR look into the works of John H. Walton, particularly his The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Walton is a professor of Old Testament who's area of expertise is comparing the Old Testament (especially Genesis) and the prevailing cultures in the ancient Near East.

Walton argues that concerns about the material origins of the world is a relatively recent preoccupation and that Genesis 1 is falsely being brought into judgment for something it was never written or designed to do. According to Walton God used the cosmological understanding of the ancient world to describe how the functions of that world were called into being and operated, leaving open the precise details of how the material nature of the world originated.

According to Walton the discussion of creation is meant to be viewed from a functional^[1] rather than material ontological perspective. Functional ontology is actually interested in somethings role and purpose rather than its material status meaning that when you talk about something being brought into existence (i.e., to create something) you're talking about giving it a function and a role.

While the Bible declares that God created the heaven and earth, but if this is an account of functional origins rather than material origins, these six days do not mark the material beginning of the cosmos but its functional beginning. Consequently, the age of the material earth and surrounding universe has no relationship to these six days, meaning that the material cosmos could well have been in existence for endless ages before this creation of functions.

Aside from presenting a strong case for this really being the way that many ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed things, and thus how the Jews at the time of Moses likely would have understood Genesis (this is not just something he concocted out of thin air to explain away differences between the biblical and scientific accounts), Walton points out that if Genesis 1 were an account of material origins, we would logically expect it to start when no material existed. Yet, in Genesis 1:2, the situation described is not absent of matter ["darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters" Gen 1:2] but absent of function.
















1. It really needs to be emphasized that the ancient idea of functions was not the same as our scientific descriptions of functions (e.g., the sun as a burning ball of gas that holds planets in orbit due to its gravitational pull) but rather their understanding of function centered wholly upon the role played in human existence.

Walton shows how during the six "days" God set up a cosmos to function for human beings, with the function described in ways that were pertinent to them (this is especially evident in the description of the fourth day).

[Sea of red]

Key term is 'basic' and the general education level is another important part. Now, depending on who you ask, Genesis was written between the 15th century BC to the 5th century BC. Either one of these ranges, puts it before Plato, Aristotle, or Archimedes and the latest date would put it right around the lifetime of Pythagoras. Considering that mathematical or observational evidence that the sun orbited the earth, was over 2,000 years away still; are you really sure about that? Have you ever read the physics models given by Aristotle? His work (which was wrong, on many things) was the science standard right up until the modern era. Likewise, Archimedes was among the most important mathematical and scientific minds, of the ancient world, and he was born in the 3rd century BC (200 to 1,300 years after Genesis was written). Likewise, education of these subjects was only reserved for the rich elites of society and the rest of society didn't even have the ability to read or write, let alone know much about these subjects. Remember, wide spread literacy and education are a modern invention that didn't exist for most of history. Finally, you're assuming that the goal of Genesis was to give a scientific account of how the world and universe was created, but where does Genesis ever say it is a scientific account to begin with? Remember, science is also a modern invention too. Those, who studied the natural sciences, would have been 'natural philosophers' and their version of 'science' is not the same as ours. The Wiki article does give a pretty good summery and the entire book can be found online, if you're interested in ever reading it. Bottom line is I think you're mistake here is the same mistake many YEC's end up making. You're reading Genesis with a modern view in mind and there is simply no reason to read Genesis, with that modern view in mind. The world of Genesis is a far different world than the world of the 21st century west. The modern scientific way you and I see the world was still thousands of years away.

I've only ever heard of Genesis - along with the rest of the books of Moses - being dated sometime in the 5000 to 4000 BCE. I've never heard of it being nearly as old
15,000 BCE. Regardless, the ancients were well capable of understanding a number of things, long before Greek philosophy ever arrived on the scene. The Babylonians have record of Algebra, Geometry, and even got a number of things in Astronomy correct. The Egyptians also made great strides in mathematics, in particular geometry, which no doubt helped them construct the pyramids. Mayan's also had a rich understanding of architecture, and weren't exactly Vandelay industries either. A lot of the stuff is dated to a thousand years or so BCE, and many speculate it's even older then that. The revolution of mathematics really begins at Pythagoras, when he basically developed the rules for what we now call theorems and proofs. But to dismiss all of the progress humans made before that is not very fair if you ask me - and yes can play around with the dates but it misses the point.

The point is the ancients were capable of understanding these things better than you've given them credit for. If God knew that, why feed people cryptic metaphors that later study would contradict? This lacks any kind of sound logic if you ask me. It makes more sense to simply see the text as a product of it's time that was from man, rather to him, we'll get to that later though.

And does that view fit into what ancient people saw? See, in that era, your worshiped the gods of the area that you were in, so if you were in Egypt, you worshiped the Egyptian gods and if you were somewhere else, you worshiped their gods. The Jews seemed to have abandoned that model and thus you, yet again, are trying to read modern standards into an ancient book. Besides, over 90% of the population could not read or write and these stories were likely written down to be read by the priest and the religious leaders (the very few people, of that era, that could read and write). Taken in that light, your argument doesn't make too much sense since writing was only a skill a few people had and ancient customs towards worship are different than modern customs towards worship.

What path did human evolution take? There's different ideas about precisely where modern humans come from. Does that invalidate modern evolution theory? Is string theory true or false? Does that disagreement prove physics is wrong? Name a field and you'll find disagreements among the field. Disagreements do not prove my view is wrong anymore than disagreements among scientist prove science is all wrong. Sorry, but you're not the one that gets to sit upon your judgment seat and cast down judgment and only I need to jump though the hoops that you don't need to jump though yourself. The bottom lines are quite simple.

I hate to tell you this, but I can judge what I want. Modern evolutionary theory is established as a corner stone of biology, and string theory is still theoretical physics that any physicist worth his salt will admit, could be very well wrong. This as opposed to the Bible, which is written as something of divine origins that is said to be from the creator of the universe. I'm sorry if I can't help but hold it to a high standard and expect something to amaze me - so far I haven't been amazed at all.

Creation views are not critical to Christianity and if you really need your God to only need a 6,000 year old earth, you must have a pretty tiny God. My view is perfectly consistent with what we know of ancient views of the world as well as how Christians and Jews took the opening chapters of Genesis. There's no nailed down absolute view, from ancient Christians to modern Christians of just how literal Genesis 1 and 2 needs to be. It sounds like to me, you're emotionally invested in the YEC view and need it to be the true view Christians should hold to. Why?

I'm not emotionally attached to YEC, and you can bet green money on that. I'm simply pointing out that you are not providing any evidence that TE is what the Bible actually promotes. It's not enough to simply say your interpretation works for you and then be done with it. You need to provide evidence that TE is something the Bible intended us to believe, rather than something you simply want to believe. The fact of the matter is, your interpretation is a lot newer, requires far more cherry-picking, and is just lacking in any convincing evidence.

And many theologians do not see it as a problem at all because not all doctrines of original sin are made the same. Some hold the idea that original sin comes not from Adam, but from the devil and humans inherited this sin upon being temped and falling for the temptation. This view would not need a literal Adam and Eve at all and thus the problem can be solved. Again, if you need your God to only exist in a 6,000 year old universe. You must have a pretty tiny God. Christian views upon original sin vary greatly due to the same reasons that it does on creation and that is because the Bible isn't 100% absolute upon how it happened.

Almost every major theologian I've read believes in some sort of an historical Adam. Everyone from William Craig to Greg Koukl see Adam and Eve as having existed historically, rather than being some kind of metaphor. I mean, why do you think creationism and ID exist in the first place? These people see this problem for what it is and as much as I might find them loony, at least they are consistent in their thinking. I'm aware that a very select few authors have radical views of original sin, but they are in a very small minority in theological community to my knowledge - much smaller than YEC at least.

But I'll bite. What evidence do you have that a literal Adam and Eve were not the intentions of the Bibles authors? Where is the evidence for this hypothesis?

Another problem: If you do take to believing in an historical Adam and Eve, how can how do you reconcile this notion with all we know from modern genetic theory and DNA? We know from these fields that human race has far more genetic make-up that from from two individuals. Also, provide evidence for whatever explanation you have.

Actually, one of the most accurate measurements of Pi, pre-Archimedes, comes from the Bible as this math historian says here. Likewise, Aristotle taught that the universe was always existing while Christian and Jewish though taught the universe was a thing that begun to exist. What view today, is accept science and what view is not?

The value of Pi was just an approximation, one that would get you throw out of any architecture, engineering, or physics class at that. It's fine that it's an approximation but it's one that's not original to the Bible at all. The Egyptians, Babylonians, tried to work the value of Pi many years before it was found in the book of Kings. There is some debate about who should be considered the first to get the true value of Pi, but I'd wager it's Al Khwarizmi or maybe Tsu Chi.

As for cosmology: anybody that knows it's history know that creation myths existed in all sorts of cultures from the Hindus to the Mayans, and I doubt you'll give them any credit for getting that right. But I find it interesting that when you think Bible is proving a point for you you'll take it literal and when it seem to contradict what we know from the sciences, it's just an allegory or metaphor. That's some really slick reasoning.

Likewise, James Hannom argues in his book (you can find it here, if you so desire and his web site is here, which includes a link to his blog) argues that it was the Christian view of the world (IE that God is rational and his nature of rationality is part of the universe among us) is responsible for the scientific revolution that was not possible before. In actual truth, you're a little off here too and there is quite a bit that you can thank Christians and the Bible for. Of course, the Bible doesn't mention these specific subjects is because it isn't designed to be a book of science, but a book pointing to the fallen nature of man and how we can find God's saving grace though Christ. As I showed above though, Christian understandings of the world, lead to the scientific understandings that simply were not possible before that moment and attempting to ignore this is silliness, to the nth degree.

The two examples you gave were pretty poor and this rationalizing is simply deflecting off the obvious fact that the Bible is pretty useless for any sort of revealed inquiry.

And arguing by link is never a good tactic.

Actually, what I have determined is that you seem to be rather emotionally invested in YEC interpretations and seem to come up with some pretty easy to refute objections to it. 1) The Bible was not nor has ever been a scientific text book and to treat it as though it is, is not correct. 2) The concept of original sin, is easy to keep, if you take the idea that it was the devil that sin descended from and the devil was the one that tempted humans and humans failed. Rather this was a literal Adam and Eve or the earliest hominids, is irrelevant to the point. 3) It provided the philosophy that helped us to break away from the Aristotelian scientific views that lead to the genesis (pun intended) of modern science. In conclusion, I think you're conflict here isn't really so much the topic as it seems you really want YEC views to be true. Remember, I've debated YEC's for years and have heard all the stuff you've come up with and dealt with it. YEC also has its own theological problems too, on top of its shaky science, so pretending as though YEC is somehow theologically sound, and TE isn't, isn't the most honest way to approach the topic.

You've failed to meet your burden of proof I'm afraid. You haven't shown any evidence that your non-literalistic theistic evolution view of the Bible is what the authors actually intended for; you've only show that one can believe this. I've seen no evidence that Adam and Eve were not intended to be taken literally, in fact the case worse now than before, along with the fact that scientifically unsound. You also provided two very poor examples of the Bible providing scientific inquiry - both of which I showed to be wrong with little effort. But worst of all you've made a case for the Bible being a product of it's time rather than the other way around. You have so far produced nothing that shows why the Bible's creation account is anything more than poetry meant to convert people.

I'm not trying to make a case for YEC, Crystal. I'm simply showing how your view lacks evidence, requires a lot ad-hoc rationalizing, and is simply philosophy and theologically unsound. I've been around the block on the stuff myself, so don't think it's going to be easy to get something past me. I've studied the sciences most of my life, and though I may not be a theologian, I'm pretty familiar with many of these arguments.

I think you've missed some major marks here, so I'll show you what you need. Any one of those would make your case stronger, but you'll have to provide evidence for your claims.

1)The Bible providing scientific inquiry beyond it's time.
2)Showing how Adam and Eve could be reconciled with modern genetic theory and evolutionary biology.
3)Evidence for your reading of the Bible being the authors actual intended interpretation.

That's pretty much the goal you should set for yourself to get the upper hand in this debate.

[Tassman]

It's not what I am saying - it's what L-POT is saying, however; I don't think she is aware of it yet.

NORM

Yes LPOT seems to have undercut her own position.

I don't think that the Bible is only allegory and metaphor. Sure, it contains that in spades, but I think it really is a collection of thoughts and imaginings of what people think / thought in their minds about the world around them.

Yes I agree with that...I wasn't limiting it to just allegory and metaphor.

As human thought evolves, so does the concept of deity - to the point where it is no longer needed to explain everything.

...or anything, in my view.

[Jaecp]

Well, I'd kind of hoped for some sort of titanic final battle before you took a break from the forum, but it looks like we're seeing what actually happens when the Davids goes up against a Goliath.

It might not be sporting, but damn is it entertaining. Keep it up dude.

Also, I cant believe theres and argument by link in this thread. What?? That's like internet debate 101...

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Actually, one of the most accurate measurements of Pi, pre-Archimedes, comes from the Bible as this math historian says here.

Alright, I was planning to generally hold my tongue, in this thread, as I think it is perfectly obvious that Christianity can be compatible with Science; however, I really just have to nitpick this claim, right here, because it is absolutely and patently ridiculous.

To say that the use of וְקָו֙ה in 1 Kings 7:23 constitutes an approximation of π is simply absurd. In order to claim that the ratio of וְקָו֙ה to וְקָו֙ is close to the ratio of π to 3, one first needs to already have an extremely accurate approximation of π. Then, one needs to presume that the ancient Hebrews who encoded this word with such an intention had an understanding of number theory which would not exist for another two millennia. Finally, one needs to presume that the ancient Mathematician so greatly valued his extremely accurate approximation for π-- a feat which would likely have required months or years of calculation, for him-- that he decided to use a far less accurate, and far more obfuscated, approximation in the text which he was writing, rather than simply tell us his more accurate calculation.

Seriously, the reasoning there is entirely specious and completely preposterous. The simple fact of the matter is that 1 Kings 7:23 was not actually making an attempt to present an accurate approximation for the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. This is not a math text. Both the anti-religionists who claim that the Bible got Pi wrong, and the converse zealots who claim that the Bible had secret, advanced knowledge are absolutely wrong.

Likewise, James Hannom argues in his book (you can find it here, if you so desire and his web site is here, which includes a link to his blog) argues that it was the Christian view of the world (IE that God is rational and his nature of rationality is part of the universe among us) is responsible for the scientific revolution that was not possible before.

This is actually not what Hannam argues. Having read his book (quite recently, in fact), he argues that many of the philosophers who laid the groundwork for the scientific revolution were explicitly inspired to do so by their Christian faith and beliefs. He does not argue that the scientific revolution would not have been possible without the Christian view of the world.

[37818]

Alright, I was planning to generally hold my tongue, in this thread, as I think it is perfectly obvious that Christianity can be compatible with Science; however, I really just have to nitpick this claim, right here, because it is absolutely and patently ridiculous.

To say that the use of וְקָו֙ה in 1 Kings 7:23 constitutes an approximation of π is simply absurd. In order to claim that the ratio of וְקָו֙ה to וְקָו֙ is close to the ratio of π to 3, one first needs to already have an extremely accurate approximation of π. Then, one needs to presume that the ancient Hebrews who encoded this word with such an intention had an understanding of number theory which would not exist for another two millennia. Finally, one needs to presume that the ancient Mathematician so greatly valued his extremely accurate approximation for π-- a feat which would likely have required months or years of calculation, for him-- that he decided to use a far less accurate, and far more obfuscated, approximation in the text which he was writing, rather than simply tell us his more accurate calculation.

Seriously, the reasoning there is entirely specious and completely preposterous. The simple fact of the matter is that 1 Kings 7:23 was not actually making an attempt to present an accurate approximation for the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. This is not a math text. Both the anti-religionists who claim that the Bible got Pi wrong, and the converse zealots who claim that the Bible had secret, advanced knowledge are absolutely wrong.

This is actually not what Hannam argues. Having read his book (quite recently, in fact), he argues that many of the philosophers who laid the groundwork for the scientific revolution were explicitly inspired to do so by their Christian faith and beliefs. He does not argue that the scientific revolution would not have been possible without the Christian view of the world.

The inside circumference was about 30 cubits. The brim was one hand breadth (v.26) which is about 1/6th cubit,
From brim to brim about 10 cubits. Where the biblical value for PI comes to about 3.1. (Ref 3.14159265358979...)
Ue

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The inside circumference was about 30 cubits. The brim was one hand breadth (v.26) which is about 1/6th cubit,
From brim to brim about 10 cubits. Where the biblical value for PI comes to about 3.1. (Ref 3.14159265358979...)
Ue

I have heard this claim, as well. It still falls flat. Again, the simple fact of the matter is that 1 Kings 7:23 was not making any attempt to describe a mathematically accurate value for the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

[Truthseeker]

I have heard this claim, as well. It still falls flat.

Perhaps I do not understand that. The difference between 3.142 (approximate) and 3.1 is about 0.042, which is around 1.3% off. I would not call that falling flat.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Perhaps I do not understand that. The difference between 3.142 (approximate) and 3.1 is about 0.042, which is around 1.3% off. I would not call that falling flat.

What falls flat is not the final number, but the methodology which is utilized to come to that final number. The actual text does not delineate that "the inside circumference was about 30 cubits," as 37818 claimed. It says that the circumference of the whole tank is 30 cubits. In order to get to the 3.1 number, a good bit of mental gymnastics must first be performed. That whole exercise is entirely unnecessary, and fairly specious, since the passage was never intended to describe an accurate mathematical description of the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

The simplest answer for the fairly inaccurate (to modern eyes) data listed in 1 Kings 7:23 is that it is anachronistic to expect the ancient Hebrews to have cared that the circumference actually measured slightly more than 31 cubits, rather than just 30 as reported.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's not what I am saying - it's what L-POT is saying, however; I don't think she is aware of it yet.

NORM

1. LPOT says that Genesis 1 and 2 are not to be taken literal.
2 Therefore, she is saying that the entire bible is metaphor and allegory.

I think you missed a few steps in there, while you were busy jumping to conclusions.