Re: Solomon's 'molten sea' revisited

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 17:09:40 EDT

Vernon, you have an M.Sc and have been a maths lecturer and are a Christian
of some long-standing.
If you cannot see the silly nature of these arguments and how they discredit
God and his Bible then expect some acridity.
So far no post of yours I have read or anything on your website is of any
benefit to the spreading of the Gospel or the glory of God. It is simply
fantabulising and any intelligent non-believer would be confirmed in their
disbelief.

Remember the purpose of the Word of God

Michael

-- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Donald Nield"
<d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>; "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Solomon's 'molten sea' revisited

> 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
> happening?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Shalom,
>
>
>
> Vernon
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
> To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; "Donald Nield"
> <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>; "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 12:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Solomon's 'molten sea' revisited
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> > To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Donald Nield"
> > <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>; "Michael Roberts"
> > <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> > Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > 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
> rounded
> > off values - physicists do it all the time when they say the speed of
> light
> > 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
> to
> > 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
> will
> > 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
> Cain
> > got his wife, severely alone.
> >
> >
> > Shalom,
> >
> > George
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun May 2 02:28:52 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 02 2004 - 02:28:53 EDT