• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

God must have sucked at math

Catz Part Deux said:
I didn't propose intercourse, i suggested that you aren't getting any. I never suggested that I wanted to fill that void.

Your reading skills = fail.
Click to expand...

You tell yourself what you need to.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Interesting thread.

More so interesting that no one (that I noticed) pointed out that: no actually *counted* out - 1 bath, 2 baths, 3 baths, 4 . . . :shrug:

It thus should suffice to say: it was a big ass ****ing building. . . that is merely the POINT that is being delivered - and if you're going to not see the forest from the trees then perhaps analyzing the Bible isn't your niche in life because it'll just give you a headache.

It's written over centuries by countless different people and the original books were in different languages and dialects - and some were from direct experiences, others were 'hearsay' and many were 'many years after the event'

"It was a big ass ****ing building"
Click to expand...

Wow. I like how you got "It was a big ass ****ing building" out of a painstaking description of a basin used to store water for the ablution of priests. The fact that we aren't talking about a building at all hasn't yet dawned on you, which makes your accusation of my "missing the point" ironic. The point was not that it was a big ass ****ing building. The point was that it gave very specific dimensions which were less than half those required to meet the volumetric description.

It was wrong. And then it was wrong again.
 
Panache said:
Wow. I like how you got "It was a big ass ****ing building" out of a painstaking description of a basin used to store water for the ablution of priests. The fact that we aren't talking about a building at all hasn't yet dawned on you, which makes your accusation of my "missing the point" ironic. The point was not that it was a big ass ****ing building. The point was that it gave very specific dimensions which were less than half those required to meet the volumetric description.

It was wrong. And then it was wrong again.
Click to expand...

*clap*
*clap*
*clap*

Don't hurt yourself.
 
Easily explained. The cubit isn't an exact measurement unit like we have now. The measure-er had long arms.
 
jallman said:
Why would anyone get this excited over finding a measurement discrepancy in two separate accounts that describe a thousands year old building? I mean...it seems like some people choose the most inane bull**** to nut over.
Click to expand...

it don't take much to get a troll rolling
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Please point out where I offered you sexual favors. :)
Click to expand...

Observation of a need is ubiquitously used as a colloquialism implying an offer to fill said need. When my girlfriend says "You're shoulders are really tight, I think you need a massage" it generally means that I shall be receiving one presently. When my friend sees that I need help with something, he says "you seem like you could use a hand" which is generally followed by receipt of the proverbial hand that I could use. My condolences if the subtleties and nuances of human interaction are lost on you.

Your tone seems contentious. Are you angry? They say that is the second stage you know...
 
Phoenix said:
Easily explained. The cubit isn't an exact measurement unit like we have now. The measure-er had long arms.
Click to expand...

Most historians believe that the cubit became standardized before the construction of Solomon's temple.

The different Jewish cubits (אַמָּה ama) are generally borrowed either from Babylonians or Greeks or Romans. In ancient Israel during the First Temple period, the cubit was 428.1 mm (16.85 in.) (≈ 26⁄27 Roman cubit). During the Second Temple period, a cubit of about 444.5 mm (17.5 in.) (≈ Roman cubit) was in general use, but in the sacred areas of the temple a special cubit of 437.6 mm (17.23 in.) seems to have been used instead (≈ 63⁄64 Roman cubit).[5]

Cf. Biblical Archaeology Review, March-April 1983, and Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology, issue 159.)
Click to expand...

However, I am willing to entertain the notion that Solomon employed a circus freak to measure his basin for him. So do you imagine that this measurer had regular human proportions and was simply two stories tall, or do you think that he was regular human height and had to drag his elbows along the floor when he walked?

Why in the world would Solomon employ such an improbably disproportionate creature to provide measurements when he knew that those measurements would then become meaningless to anyone?
 
jallman said:
Why would anyone get this excited over finding a measurement discrepancy in two separate accounts that describe a thousands year old building? I mean...it seems like some people choose the most inane bull**** to nut over.
Click to expand...

It's only really exciting if you previously thought that the Bible was the infallible word of an infallible God. This would provide quite the upset to such a view, since it is irreconcilable with the concept of an inerrant Bible.

If you think that God makes math errors, no biggie. Ditto if you think the Bible isn't the Word of God. Move along unbeliever. Nothing to see here.
 
I'm an agnostic who is fairly adept at religious trolling, and this is one of the lamest attempts I've ever seen.
 
jallman said:
Why would anyone get this excited over finding a measurement discrepancy in two separate accounts that describe a thousands year old building? I mean...it seems like some people choose the most inane bull**** to nut over.
Click to expand...

I dunno, but after 40 years of exhaustive study, I've ALMOST figured out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I will be publishing my findings shortly.
 
Gardener said:
I dunno, but after 40 years of exhaustive study, I've ALMOST figured out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I will be publishing my findings shortly.
Click to expand...

judging by the merit of this thread...do you have any data on how many angels can dance on a pinhead?
 
OscarB63 said:
judging by the merit of this thread...do you have any data on how many angels can dance on a pinhead?
Click to expand...

Chilean mountain angels, or Iberian angels of the plains?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I'm an agnostic who is fairly adept at religious trolling, and this is one of the lamest attempts I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

What is lame about it? I have provided mathematical proof that the Bible contains false information. The only one who has even attempted to debate this point is Phoenix. Inane or not, my evidence of errancy in the Bible is nearly incontestable, otherwise, there would be more than one post attempting to contest it.
 
Panache said:
It's only really exciting if you previously thought that the Bible was the infallible word of an infallible God. This would provide quite the upset to such a view, since it is irreconcilable with the concept of an inerrant Bible.

If you think that God makes math errors, no biggie. Ditto if you think the Bible isn't the Word of God. Move along unbeliever. Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

I believe in the written word. I don't believe that descriptions by two different authors of a building they probably never saw negates the message to be found in the Bible.
 
Panache said:
It's only really exciting if you previously thought that the Bible was the infallible word of an infallible God. .
Click to expand...

It's only really exciting if you are a mindless troll.
 
After rethinking this topic I think I concur . . . God did suck at math . . . Maybe his clay tablet or reed stylus broke?
 
Panache said:
Most historians believe that the cubit became standardized before the construction of Solomon's temple.



However, I am willing to entertain the notion that Solomon employed a circus freak to measure his basin for him. So do you imagine that this measurer had regular human proportions and was simply two stories tall, or do you think that he was regular human height and had to drag his elbows along the floor when he walked?
Click to expand...

His elbow to finger tip measurement would need to be 22"
Using the general formula of that measurement being 25% of height, the person would need to be 7' tall. Increasing the percentage to just 28% would be a person 6' 6" tall. Not as huge or disproportionate as one would initially think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom