RE: Peer review and ID

From: gordon brown <>
Date: Tue Oct 25 2005 - 11:45:44 EDT

Extremely round numbers are likely to have symbolic significance. That is
why I have problems with some translations that change measurements in
Revelation 21 into English units of measure, thus removing the possible
symbolic significance of the number.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Dick Fischer wrote:

> Approximate numbers and round numbers are replete in the biblical texts.
> This is just another example. Even a cubit itself is an approximate
> number representing the length from elbow to hand. It could be twelve
> inches or 18 to 20 if you go out to the middle finger. Imprecise
> numbers are just part of the cultural charm. Live with it. In
> Revelation, 144,000 (60 squared times 40) will be saved from the twelve
> tribes of Israel. Exactly 12,000 from each tribe. Sounds like
> arbitrariness in the extreme if it's a literal head count.
> ~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:12 AM
> To:
> Cc:;
> Subject: Re: Peer review and ID
> Yes, pi is 3 to a single significant figure, But that doesn't cover the
> fact that it is measurements that are given, so that a value for pi is
> inferred. Suggesting one measurement of a flared rim and another without
> the flare requires gross incompetence in measuring. If we try to make
> all the statements strictly true, they made ~5% error in some
> measurement. That they could be more exact is seen in I Samuel 17:4.
> Elsewhere there are other obvious problems. What I was trying to point
> out is the futility of trying to make every biblical utterance
> scientifically or mathematically true. It can't be done!
> Dave
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:27:13 -0400 "George Murphy" <>
> writes:
> Pi = 3 to one significant figure.
> Anyone who's been on this list very long knows that I'm not a concordist
> & don't feel required to try to show that the scientific views of the
> biblical writers were in accord with our modern scientific picture of
> the world. The sky isn't a solid dome. Nevertheless, pi IS 3 to one
> significant figure & even the strictest inerrantist &/or concordist
> ought to be content with that. The only consistent alternative is to
> demand that the biblical writer not say that the circumference of the
> molten sea was 30 cubits, or 31.4 cubits, or even 31.4159 cubits but
> that it be expressed in terms of an infinite series for pi or something
> like that. And such a demand would be, I suggest, absurd - which shows
> the absurdity of the whole enterprise.
> Shalom
> George
Received on Tue Oct 25 12:34:52 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 25 2005 - 12:34:52 EDT