- People who do not know the Bible very well and bring out old, tired arguments that have been answered and answered again over the years.
- People who have devoted themselves to studying the Bible in order to find some way to find flaws in the book itself or assert that the authorship of the book is in question.
- People who actually want to figure out if the Bible is accurate or not.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
There are many commenters who blithely dismiss the Bible because of the verse in I Kings 7:23 & 24 that states the following:
"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. Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea."
Now there are portions of the Old Testament in which God gave the people a plan to carry out, such as when He told Noah to build the Ark. The general sizes given in Genesis produce a massive ship that is built to specifications that modern shipbuilders use today for large ocean-going vessels. How could Noah have known what design could withstand a world-wide flood? But God knew. We do not get the blueprint that Noah received in whatever form from God, but we know it worked and we know the general descriptive dimensions of the Ark are perfect for the job.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
"When I worked in the automotive industry, we had differing requirements for various parts depending upon their purpose. Some measurements were critical and some were not. We had variations built in to the requirements for padding and sound deadening parts that allowed for a good bit of variation, as they were not critical parts of the automobile. But some parts had to be made exactly right, enough so that they would fit precisely on a "buck" and their dimensions and the spacing of punched holes or added pieces of metal all hit the exact mark. The same was true in the steel industry. There were many items that had to be measured by a caliper to fit within a very narrow band of acceptable readings. In all of these scenarios, I was part of the production team and was following specific instructions.
Comments on this second post devolved into a back-and-forth between Daniel and David Gracely and Jon Woolf as to whether the brothers were making logical, scientific arguments or were resorting to numerology. The Gracely men then asked me if they could post a thorough response. So now...Jon's last comment and the Gracely responses, which are in a different font and also included html code that I am leaving in just because it reminds the reader that it is a Gracely who is writing the material. Blue was used when Jon quoted Daniel within Jon's last comment and will be used where direct quotes are included, below:
Jon Woolf said...
What makes an argument 'numerology' is not whether or not it's mathematically valid. Even among crackpots, few are so stupid as to base a claim on equations that anyone can prove are wrong with a pencil and paper. No, what makes an argument numerology is the free introduction of unprovable yet "unchallengeable" sources for its numbers, and the derivation of some mystical Truth from it. Case in point:
Historically, the cubit is one of the many anthropological measurements. It's based on the length of the average man's forearm. The fraction 1/10,000,000 comes from the original metric system: the meter was originally defined as 1/10,000,000 of the Earth's quadrant length -- the distance along a line of longitude from the pole to the Equator, assuming Earth is a perfect sphere.
On top of that, no one knows the actual length of a sacred cubit, or indeed if there was a measurement called "the sacred cubit." The Hebrew "cubit" is properly called the amah or ell, a unit of length that seems to have been equal to the Egyptian cubit. On the other hand, the Egyptians had two different units called the "cubit," a regular cubit and the larger royal cubit, and no one can be sure which cubit the amah matches. Some clues suggest that the Hebrews originally used the royal cubit, then replaced it later with the regular cubit. Oh, and neither Egyptian cubit is 25 inches long; the regular cubit is about 17.5 inches and the royal cubit is about 20.6 inches.
Your argument is numerology.