Shareware Overload Trio 2/Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO/dir32/alphon_5.zip/8301/SCEPTIC

Text File | 1993-10-02 | 12KB | 236 lines

                THE EMPHATIC SCEPTIC.

        It is astounding how often those engaged in research will
       declare the Bible is wrong when the Scriptures present a view about
       the world which differs from the results they have obtained in some
       research they have been involved in.

        Our daily newspaper is often the avenue critics use to show
       the Bible is 'out-of-touch' with modern advances and therefore
       unreliable, because it 'appears' to be unaware of some scientific
       fact, technological advance, or a commonly known' mathematical
       formulae.

        This was made clear some years ago, (in a letter to the
       Adelaide 'Advertiser' (1969), by a man who signed himself
       anonymously as 'Archie Opter'.  X Methodist.  Prospect.

        It reads in part, quote:- 'The Old Testament says that the
       ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter is 3,
       and not 3.1416, (2 Kings 7:23).' end of quote.

        He misquoted the Scripture reference of course which should
       have been 1 Kings 7:23 not 2 Kings 7:23 however the Scripture in
       question reads as follows.

        'And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the
       other. It was round all about, and its height was five cubits; and
       a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.  And under the
       brim of it round about there were knops, compassing the sea round
       about. And it was a handbreadth thick, and the brim of it was
       wrought like the brim of a cup with flowers of lilies.'
                  1 Kings 7:23-26.

        He is not alone in his criticism of the value of 'pi'.

        A science teacher from a Technical School in Victoria, wrote
       an article in the Adelaide 'Advertiser' also, even stronger in its
       criticism of this apparent lack of knowledge.

        Her article was headed Pi:-The irrational number, and was as
       follows, quote.

        "Pi is an irrational number...the number with decimal
       expansion that is infinite and non recurring.  Therefore it is
       impossible to find the exact value of Pi in an ordinary number
       system. However the number can be calculated to any required degree
       of accuracy.

        The relationship between the length of the diameter of a
       circle and its circumference had been known from very early days,
       and the Babylonians were the first to find the value of pi as 3,
       and the following passage, appears in the Old Testament.

        'He then made a sea of cast metal: it was round in shape, the
       diameter from rim to rim being ten cubits; it stood five cubits
       high, and took a line thirty cubits to go around.'  1 Kings 7:23.

         The circumference was thus three times the diameter.

        It shows that the Hebrews, like the Babylonians, also accepted
       Pi as equal to 3 and, from the Ahmes Papyrus, an ancient roll found
       in the 19th Century, we learn that about 2000 B.C. the Egyptians
       used 3.16 as a value of pi."  End of quote.

        Without wanting to be too critical of the Science teacher the
       quote used was a paraphrase of the original and was not as specific
       in its description as is the King James version, therefore the
       teacher may have been 'led astray' by the 'approximate' way the
       dimensions are described.

        However any teacher who takes previous studies at 'face value'
       without researching the matter personally is open to the same
       criticism as their predecessors.

        Nevertheless this teacher was not alone in criticising the use
       of 3 as an approximate value by the Hebrews because many scholars,
       both secular and Biblical, have also come to the same erroneous
       conclusion.

           They all stand in the same condemnation.

        They have either taken their teacher's word for a study, as
       perhaps their mentors did when they were students, or they have not
       investigated it for themselves and any wrong conclusion reached
       because of this is perpetuated.

        J.J. Heading. West Ham College of Technology. London, in an
       article in "Nature." July 4. 1949, has an article on page 78 dated
       April 7 which reads, in part, as follows.

        'Students often perpetuate any errors the authority in whom
       they trust make. Many recent authors of texts containing accounts
       of the historical development of the numerical value of pi write
       under the misapprehension that in the Old Testament its apparent
       value is 3.  Some are:-

    Professor E.T.Bell. "The Development of Mathematics."

    (1945). Professor L. Hogben, in "Mathematics for the Million".

    P. Dubriel. "Les Grands Courants de la Pensee Mathematics."

    Professor T. Dantzwig. "Number. The Language of Science."

    Archbold. J.W. "Algebra".  Quotes Dubriel and writes:-"The Bible
    gives the value of pi as 3 .  (1958). He therefore, as others
       before and after him, perpetuate this error in the minds of the
       next generation of students who read their texts.

            These writers fall into two classes:-

        1. Those regarding pi as actually given as 3.

        2. Those who regard the measurements as approximate.

        Of course this is not confined to those who do not believe the
       Bible, for many scholars, having seen this apparent error regarding
       the value of pi, have 'explained it, and many other difficult texts
       away', not seeing that such an approach lends credence to the
       Rationalist, or Humanist view, that the Bible is the work of man,
       not that of God.

        For instance in their commentary on 2 Chronicles 4:2, in "The
       International Critical Commentary". E.L.Curtis & A.A. Masden,
       suggest:-'The numbers are only an approximation.' (1910) or, 'These
       dimensions are only round figures.' (1951)

        A careful reading of 1 Kings 7:23 is sufficient to dispose of
       this approximation, for it transpires that the circumference of 30
       cubits, and the diameter of 10 cubits do not relate to the same
       circle.

        It is impossible to conclude therefore, that pi was taken as
       3, either approximately or mistakenly.

        Sir William Smith. "A Dictionary of the Bible." (1893),  gives
       the literal translation of the Hebrew text as follows:- "The brim
       was curved outward like a lily, or lotus flower.' and his
       Dictionary gives a general sketch of the "sea", according to the
       restoration by Keil.  A distinctly outwardly curving brim exists,
       with a row of knops underneath it.

        The Jewish Encyclopedia.  I.  Singer.  (1925), gives a
       detailed etching of the restoration according to Calmet, together
       with a cross-section of the "sea."  This too shows the
       characteristic brim, with the row of knops below it, around a
       circle of smaller diameter than that of the brim.' End of quote.

        All of these critics despite their scientific training and
       logical approach to a problem have not, perhaps because they are
       not aware or want to be aware of its purpose, closely examined the
       text and, failing to visualise how the finished "sea" would look
       when filled, have assumed an ignorance of the value of pi on the
       part of the Hebrews which is both unwarranted and false.

        Looking at the text closely it is obvious TWO aspects of the
       article are being described.

        1. The 'made' Sea which has a diameter of 10 cubits.

        2. The Sea within it which has a circumference of 30 cubits.

        The Scriptures allude to both the "sea" and the contents
       within it as the "sea."

        There is no way the 'contents' of ANY vessel can have the same
       circumference as the vessel which holds those contents.

        In this instance it is utterly impossible, as a careful
       reading of the text reveals, because the basin was not only a 'hand
       breath THICK' which reduced the capacity of inner part of the basin
       to hold water by a considerable amount, but the brim was curved
       outward also, 'as a lily,' making it impossible to be filled even
       to the outer surface of the brim.

        If the difficulty of seeing this is because the Scriptures use
       the same word "sea" for both the basin and the contents, would the
       same difficulty arise had the description been speaking of a well?

        One knows that even if only the word well is used we are
       speaking of the same thing when we speak of a well whether it be
       the well itself or the water within it.

        The writer who assumed the name of Archie Opter X had another
       criticism of Bible students when in general terms he derided what
       he called their 'head in the sand attitude' and asked them to
       explain why, if the earth was round, did the Bible implicitly
       declare it was flat!

        To be sure 'Religion and Religious leaders', in the dark years
       of ignorance and the Inquisition made these assertions and, if an
       honest or knowledgeable scientist or student disagreed with their
       dogma they were pilloried, disgraced, or even killed.

        However there is no place in the Scriptures which imply the
       earth was flat, let alone an implicit presentation of such a
       theory. Indeed the Scriptures declare, in no uncertain terms, it is
       a circle, Isaiah 40:22, round, turning as clay does to the potter's
       seal, Job 38:14, makes a circuit, and hangs in an empty place upon
       nothing.  Job 26:7.

        His further question asking, "Does a Christian believe that
       Joshua stopped the passage of the sun across the sky,' can be
       easily answered.

        One way to account for such an event happening without
       disturbing the rhythm of the earth or causing discomfort to its
       inhabitants is that God tilted the axis of the earth to a degree
       which caused the `long day` of the Northern hemisphere to be
       centred at Ajalon for the length of that particular day. Such an
       event would not disturb anything at all and the sun would appear to
       hang in the sky hasting `not to go down about a whole day,` (as it
       does in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres each year),
       until God restored the axis to the position it has today and, for
       those who are intrigued by the words `about a whole day` here and
       later, it surely must be associated with the `ten degrees back'
       of Hezekiah which later completed the `almost` of Joshua.

        A book written by a Professor Tottem called, `Joshua`s Long
       Day` and an article he had published earlier, in 1890, called,
       `When the earth turned over`, examines this more closely and
       explain clearly how such an event could occur.

        He also gives evidence of a `long night` on the opposite side
       of the world and he records that this was quoted by the Greek
       historian Herodotus and is also to be found in the Chinese records
       in the time of Yeo, a contempory of Joshua.

        Immanuel Velikosky gives information about this event in other
       parts of the world in his book, `Worlds in Collision`, pages 56-57.

        It is also examined in a Christian publication called, `The
       Long Day of Joshua`, written by a group of authors, Patten, Hatch,
       and Steinhauer published by the Pacific Meridian Publishing Company
       of Seattle in 1973.