Holy shit!!!, the Bible is true!, the math lines up.

Author: Dr.Franklin ,

Posts

Total: 63
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11

This is crazy, Genesis 1:1 combine the letters and multiply the product of the letters,then divide it by the number of words and multiply the product of words, it equals Pie!!, 3.146, wow!

Do the same with John 1:1 and you get 2.7183, the number of Euler's Number. Holy crap!

This is honestly life-changing
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
--> @Dr.Franklin
it equals Pie!!, 3.146, wow!
Pi, rounded to three decimals, is 3.142.

Not that such minor details matter to the true believer.

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @Stronn
The approximate value is 3.14159
Rounded to 3.146



Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
--> @Dr.Franklin
3.14159 rounds to 3.142.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @Stronn
.59
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 969
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @Dr.Franklin
That's not how rounding works
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @dustryder
Sure,but its a precise number
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 969
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @Dr.Franklin
Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @dustryder
Well the number of pi is 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989

3.146 is precise
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 969
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @Dr.Franklin
So quick lesson on mathematical terms : a number that has many digits trailing the decimal point is precise. When you round numbers up or down to significant figures, that number loses precision. 

Pi with 100 trailing digits is more precise than Pi with 3 trailing digits.

Apart from this, accuracy is a concept that describes how correct a number is.

Hence 3.146 is both unprecise and unaccurate
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @dustryder
but rounding the other numbers is more precise
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,919
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Dr.Franklin
3.1416 is precise
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @3RU7AL
Plato determined Pi to be 3.146. Isaac Newton, considered to be calculus' father, was able to calculate Pi to 16 decimal points.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @3RU7AL @Dr.Franklin @Stronn
1 kings 7:23 makes it quite clear pi is exactly 3.

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @keithprosser
Second, we should consider the matter of significant figures. On a physics test, if a circle is said to have a diameter of 10 feet and the student is asked to compute the circumference, the correct answer is 30 feet—not 31 feet. The reason 31 feet is an incorrect answer is because it implies a precision that is unwarranted by the given information. The value 10 feet indicates that the diameter has been rounded. Perhaps it has been rounded up from the exact value of 9.5 feet, in which case the exact circumference would be 29.845. . . feet—which rounds up to 30 feet.
Third, we should consider 1 Kings 7:26, which states that this cylindrical vessel “was a handbreadth thick.” Since the diameter is given from “brim to brim” (verse 23), the 10 cubits is referring to the outer diameter (which includes the handbreadth thickness of the rim). However, the circumference may well refer to the inner circle (as this is more representative of the pool of water inside the cylinder), which excludes the handbreadth. So, even if we take the outer diameter to be exactly 10 cubits, the inner diameter would be smaller. A handbreadth is roughly 1/4 of a cubit; so, the inner diameter would be 10 cubits - (0.25 x 2) cubits = 9.50 cubits. This means the inner circumference would be 29.845. . . cubits, which rounds up to 30 cubits (not 31 cubits).
In conclusion, the accusation that the Bible has made a mathematical mistake is totally without merit. The biblical answer is spot on, given the information presented and the precision of the numbers in question.


keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @Dr.Franklin
That's lifted from answersingenesis.com

Well, you can believe that if you like, but I believe what the bible says.   I reckon fractions are the work of satan, like telephones.




Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @keithprosser
Its not wrong though
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Kind of reminds me of "the bible code" that was popular a few decades ago. I don't really think scripture is intended to be used like this.



Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @Mopac
Im writing a post on that now, it's trippy
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @Dr.Franklin
30 instead of 31 'and a bit' is an error of only about 3%.... IMO it's probably the most accurate thing in the whole bible!

I don't do hidden stuff in the Bible.  I remember the fuss over 'ELS' a while back. It sold few books, I suppose.





Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @keithprosser
look at my new topic
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
--> @Dr.Franklin
Second, we should consider the matter of significant figures. On a physics test, if a circle is said to have a diameter of 10 feet and the student is asked to compute the circumference, the correct answer is 30 feet—not 31 feet. The reason 31 feet is an incorrect answer is because it implies a precision that is unwarranted by the given information. The value 10 feet indicates that the diameter has been rounded. Perhaps it has been rounded up from the exact value of 9.5 feet, in which case the exact circumference would be 29.845. . . feet—which rounds up to 30 feet.
This is such a desperate stretch that I can't believe even Answers in Genesis would offer it as a serious explanation. Sometimes I wonder if the apologetics there actually believe their own explanations.

No physics or geometry test worth its salt would reject 31 as an incorrect answer, certainly not because of some precision the test-taker is supposed to infer. The worst part is AIC says 30 is the correct answer and 31 is incorrect because "perhaps it has been rounded up from the exact value of 9.5 feet." Well guess what? It could just as easily have been rounded down from the exact value of 10.49 feet, in which case 33 feet would be the correct answer. There is no way to know from the question. Saying 30 is correct and not 31 because "perhaps it was rounded up" is laughable.

When biblical inerrancy is your axiom, it's amazing the mental gymnastics you must perform.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @Stronn
Well it could have,Idk we dont' know but aI trust God, look at my new post
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
--> @Dr.Franklin
I looked and replied.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,105
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @Stronn
yeah I saw