Re: Solomon's 'molten sea' revisited

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 16:09:48 EDT

George, just a few comments by way of response:

Thanks for explaining what "Get a life" means to an American. From this end,
I have to say, it sounded somewhat acrid.

I am surprised that you should believe that in Luke 10:10-11 the Lord has
established a rigid precept to be followed by all succeeding generations of
Christians. The Apostle Paul certainly did not see things that way; neither
do present day missionaries and gospel preachers; nor should we. Your
original point, of course, was that there would be little purpose in my
bringing the 1Kings 7:23 analysis to the attention of an unbelieving
intelligentsia. But is one really able to predetermine the outcome of such a

Concerning your recommendation: Michael has yet to respond to a few
questions put to him - and I'm sure he would not want to be denied the
opportunity of so doing. I have the strong impression that it suits the
purposes of many Christians (Michael included) to propagate and sustain the
myth that the Old Testament writers spoke for a people that knew very little
about science or mathematics. It the light of the discussion you wish to see
terminated, I suggest that idea is highly questionable.



----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <>; "Donald Nield"
<>; "Michael Roberts"
Cc: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: Solomon's 'molten sea' revisited

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vernon Jenkins" <>
> To: "George Murphy" <>; "Donald Nield"
> <>; "Michael Roberts"
> <>
> Cc: <>
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Solomon's 'molten sea' revisited
> > Thank you, George. Let me address the points you make, in reverse order:
> >
> > 1) I already have a life.
> I realized after I sent this post that "Get a life" may be an American
> idiom not familiar to everybody. It is used in reference to people who
> devote inordinate amounts of their interest, time & energy to essentially
> worthless tasks - like those who really care whether or not Ben Affleck &
> Jeniffer Lopez ever get married. I realize that you think that in
> concerning yourself with the dimensions of the brazen sea you're defending
> the Word of God, but you are wasting your time.
> > 2) Are you not a preacher? Don't you persist in proclaiming the
> gospel
> > message -even when the ground appears completely barren?
> Why ask what I do? Why not follow up my suggestion and see what Jesus
> said - e.g., in Lk.10:10-11.
> >
> > 3) What is so complicated about drawing intelligent people's
> attention
> > to the facts as I have set them out?
> > 4) Your comment regarding the term "error" I find hard to
> understand.
> > If one knows that pi exceeds 3, but ignores the fact, and uses 3 anyway,
> in
> > whatever context, then surely one wittingly incurs an error in the end
> > result.
> & the same would be true if one said that pi was 3.14159 or any
> other finite expression. We all wittingly incur errors when we use
> off values - physicists do it all the time when they say the speed of
> is 300,000 km/sec. Roman engineers used pi = 3-1/8 even though they knew
> that 3-1/7 was more accurate because eighths are easier to work with than
> sevenths. Maybe the writer of I Kg knew that the ratio of circumference
> diameter was approximately 3-1/7 but didn't use that value because saying
> "31.14 cubits" in Hebrew numerical terminology would have been clumsy &
> interrupted the flow of his prose - considerations of linguistic elegance
> rather than (as for the Romans) ease in computation.
> Now lest anyone think I too am desperately in need of a life, I
> say no more about this. & I recommend that everyone else leave the
> non-problem of the biblical value of pi, like the non-problem of where
> got his wife, severely alone.
> Shalom,
> George
Received on Sat May 1 16:10:38 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 01 2004 - 16:10:39 EDT