Posted on 11/30/2004 9:14:15 AM PST by cainin04
That's the usual way of "saving" the passage. It would have been more economical to say it was 10 cubits across, period. If they knew about pi, there was absolutely no need to mention the circumfrence. The diameter alone was all that was needed to convey that information.
They could have also specifically mentioned the thickness of the pond if they wanted to, directly, without all the fudging around, but it's difficult to divine that such was the purpose of what was actually stated. Anyway, whatever it was, it's gone now. I don't worry much about it.
I don't see why some can't see a difference between "how" the world was created and "why" the world was created. Scientists leave to the theologians the latter question.
So why do theologians insist on telling scientists their business?
Whatever their version of a cubit was, they could cut a string that would be, for their purposes, one cubit. Got that? Having measured 10 cubits for the diameter, how difficult would it be to measure either 30 (which they did) or the more accurate 31 (plus a tad) of them for the circumfrence? Too high-tech for those guys? Really?
Don't get testy with me Patrick.
Why don't you go search the Bible and find the verse which refers to tenths of a cubit. Neither you nor I know what they measured or knew but one of us is pretending he knows. That would be you. Got it? :>}
In other words: you can't point it out.
> Technically, although it's clearly not in an operative clause, one can argue that's a reference to God.
Ah. And of course, if it had mentioned the day as being Wednesday, then that would be proof that the Founding Fathers were Asatruar.
Sneaky logic some people use...
Sometimes things are hidden in the Bible until they are ready to be found.
Wasn't trying to be. Just wanted to take it step by step because you seemed to be having difficulties. The point is that I don't think those ancient folk could have been so clumsy as to measure only 30 lengths of their "cubit string" for what should have been (roughly) 31.4 lengths. I know they didn't use the decimal system, but they still could have easily seen that the correct circumfrence was nearly 31 and a half cubits, not 30. Which is the point of the whole exercise.
You're right, I don't know other men's hearts. That's why we compare your rhetoric to scripture to check if what you say is true - and when we see your rhetoric painting you a liar, we must reject you for the liar you are after attempting to correct you unsuccessfully. You're problem is that most don't want to cause trouble and more yet don't know the scriptures they say they hold dear. You don't get pressed to prove what you say. And when you come up against someone who knows better, you squeal like a stuck pig because someone dared prove you wrong. Cross the line, you're joking - right. You ain't seen nothin junior. I'm a teddy bear. And you can save the lecture on fruits. What fruit do you think was being laid forth when Christ whupped the money changers, overturned their tables and wrecked the temple? What fruit do you suppose was being sown when he called the Pharisees Vipers (SNAKES), or when he called his Generation "Wicked", Or when he rebuked Peter "Get thee behind me Satan!". Christ didn't ask his enemies to hold hands with him and sing Kumbaya when the berated him and lied, when they trashed the scriptures in favor of their philosophies - no, he let them have it between the eyes as an example to the rest of us. Forgiving the repentant is easy. But to fight evil, you must first be able to identify it and square off with it. This far and no further. Here's a nice thought, if you don't want to be called a liar, don't lie. Judging your heart on the matter is immaterial to the fact of your actions. Your intentions, in other words, will get you nowhere.
It seems to me you got an answer from someone else - post 542. That said, my saying it was already discussed was not confirmation of your point, rather my unwillingness (laziness if you will) to go and tell you which of the 500 plus posts answers your question.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Well, Rockefeller was a big spender, and a union symp, so he wasn't ever very appealing to this RINO. LOL. The fact is, is that the GOP party has its wings, and both are needed in order to fly. Never forget that. They key is to keep folks like me on the reservation - well not me, per se, because I am a political junkie, which certain flash points that make the Dem party unacceptable to me (teacher's union and vouchers, tort lawyers and tort reform), but you get the drift. The GOP needs securlarists that feel folks of faith, including Evangelicals are not a threat to America. The GOP needs in short the I'm OK, you're OK crowd on this matter, to get above 50%.
"You're problem is that most don't want to cause trouble and more yet don't know the scriptures they say they hold dear. You don't get pressed to prove what you say. And when you come up against someone who knows better, you squeal like a stuck pig because someone dared prove you wrong."...are way out of line. It is just the latest - not even close to the worst - example of your habit of going far beyond saying "you are wrong", to attributing ugly motives and character flaws to people you don't know.
See Exodus Chapter 21 all God's laws for slavery are there including how to sell you daughter into slavery.
For the NT
1 Pet.2:18 "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." -- Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 2/18/1861
> It seems to me you got an answer from someone else - post 542.
Yes. And the simple mention of the year, in the current vernacular, is NOT an appeal to God, or including God in the Constitution in any real way. Consider your original statement on the topic: "A government that has no controls becomes corrupt so that's why the founding fathers, including Jefferson, put God in the constitution."
They did not "put God in the Constitution" for the purposes of control; they did not "put God in the Constitution" AT ALL. No more than mentioning that today is Friday means I'm appealing to Freya for aid.
If you actually, honestly believe otherwise, I wonder how you can get through daily life without resorting to appeals to gods which are not your own. If you do not wish to be in violation of the Commandment about "I am the Lord Your God," I suppose you've renamed the days of the week? The Months? The planets? Even cars?
Undoubtedly all true but I'm a big tent kind of guy. I don't advocate the mass exodus of any group from the tent just the individuals who are "intolerant" of religionists. :-}
Before you ask any more questions, please see if was answered beforehand. I will not respond to duplicate questions from here on out. No offense, but I have a head cold and easily irritated tonight.
> Just because the word "God" isn't there does not mean God's law was not used in the development of the constitution.
Well, you have A Big Problem: "I am the Lord your God, and stone anyone who doesn't play along" goes mightily against "Freedom of Religion." Democracy and the right to peaceably assemble and voice grievances were right out in the OT... God smacked down a whole bunch of people - and a lot of people who just happened to be nearby - when some 250 Jewish tribal leaders went to dictator Moses and asked for a representative government.
Your right, it's my problem. Thanks for pointing that out.
Hello. What in the heck do you think it is you're supposed to be doing as a Christian. What do you think Christians are! They strive to mimic everything that Christ was and is, from athority to understanding. And his demand of us was precisely that while saying "greater things will you do" - that's us, than did He. He came to prove we could do it, demanded it of us, then advised we would be greater in deed than even himself because of what he accomplished. And there you sit upset because one dares to take on the very thing he is charged with. Did you think before speaking? At all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.