# Some dumb Bible question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 16, 2018, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318 "2018-05-16T23:58:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/41 "2018-05-19T02:13:12Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > . Bible literalism is rare outside of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians. I find that people who attack the Bible are often more literal than the worst of fundamentalists. Take for instance the [pi=3](https://gospelofreason.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/god-said-pi-3-stand-by-your-beliefs-dammit/)claim that is often used by attackers. Try finding me any Christian fundamentalist that actually believes such. In fact I doubt if most of them even know the verse at all. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/42 "2018-05-19T02:19:29Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Well, when you put it _that_ way, why couldn’t time be being tracked according to the rotational cycles of some other planet? Something tidily extra-universal, where God keeps his bungalow? In that case, I say fund NASA doublequick. He/She/It is bound to have left a rake, a slightly deflated plastic canoe or at least a rubber ducky lying around. Who’s to say what kind of prophetic powers befall He who finds God’s rubber ducky ?! ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/43 "2018-05-19T02:24:54Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > I find that people who attack the Bible are often more literal than the worst of fundamentalists. > > Take for instance the [pi=3](https://gospelofreason.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/god-said-pi-3-stand-by-your-beliefs-dammit/)claim that is often used by attackers. Try finding me any Christian fundamentalist that actually believes such. In fact I doubt if most of them even know the verse at all. Errr, wasn’t that a proposed law by US fundies to begin with ? [Some google later] Huh. Turns out it really was a proposed law, but the guy wasn’t specifically religious. Just from Indiana. The more you know. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/44 "2018-05-19T02:39:16Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Errr, wasn’t that a proposed law by US fundies to begin with ? [Some google later] Huh. Turns out it really was a proposed law, but the guy wasn’t specifically religious. Just from Indiana. The more you know. [Cecil speaks.](https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3/) ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/45 "2018-05-19T11:47:00Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > This resurrection stuff will only happen during the “end times”, right? So (excepting, of course, the entire theological implication) it is irrelevant to the physical world until such time; and after the “end”, well, science will be somewhat less important than it is now. Which again is a massive assumption, plucked out of thin air with no evidence behind it and every bit as spurious as any of the other outlandish biblical claims. It is the equivalent of telling people not to cling to a belief in the easter bunny because that makes people question your judgement when you assert the existence of fairies. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/46 "2018-05-19T13:44:01Z")
The thing is, the “Biblical value of pi” isn’t even wrong. In fact, it’s better than what one typically sees out of first-year college students in science classes. It’s an appropriate use of significant figures: The diameter of the bowl is given to only one sigfig as “about 10 cubits”, and so the circumference should also properly be given to only one sigfig, as “about 30 cubits”. Anyone who describes that bowl as being “31.4159 cubits” around, or the like, is inserting more precision than is justified. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/47 "2018-05-19T14:12:09Z")
That’s really my point. It’s the \*atheists \*who who take the Bible literally, and claim the measurements are exact, and the bowl a geometrically perfect circle. The more reasonable people will say that the measurements are slightly off, or else it wasn’t a perfect circle. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/48 "2018-05-19T14:46:10Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > In that case, I say fund NASA doublequick. He/She/It is bound to have left a rake, a slightly deflated plastic canoe or at least a rubber ducky lying around. Who’s to say what kind of prophetic powers befall He who finds God’s rubber ducky ?! I’m now wondering how could one add “if you’d been born now, you would have had rubber duckies” to Judas’ song from Jesus Christ Superstar. Nava, aka Aunt Duckies (really) ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/49 "2018-05-19T15:43:13Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > That’s really my point. It’s the \*atheists \*who who take the Bible literally, and claim the measurements are exact, and the bowl a geometrically perfect circle. The more reasonable people will say that the measurements are slightly off, or else it wasn’t a perfect circle. [Really?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy) > [@wiki](#): > > Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”, is the doctrine that the Protestant Bible “is without error or fault in all its teaching”; or, at least, that “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact”. So, when evangelicals claim the manuscripts do not affirm anything that is contrary to fact, and the atheists point out that Pi isn’t really 3, it’s the _atheists_ who are at fault? Interesting take. Faith can do a lot of good for a lot of people and has many teaching moments. Rigorous logic isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/50 "2018-05-19T16:06:52Z")
But Pi is, as has been said, actually 3. If you give it with zero decimals. It’s also 3.14 with two decimals, 3.1416 with 4, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/51 "2018-05-19T18:15:27Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > That’s really my point. It’s the \*atheists \*who who take the Bible literally, and claim the measurements are exact, and the bowl a geometrically perfect circle. The more reasonable people will say that the measurements are slightly off, or else it wasn’t a perfect circle. I don’t think the atheists take the bible literally at all. They may point to what the bible _actually says_ and ask the believers to explain why that is not to be taken literally but other things are. That isn’t taking the bible literally though is it? That’s just asking people to back up their claims and explain their reasoning. That’s perfectly fair. An atheist in general would not give the bible a second thought until such time as a believer makes a claim that something in the bible is literally true. If the believers would say that nothing in the bible is true then atheists would not care one jot. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/52 "2018-05-19T18:52:52Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I don’t think the atheists take the bible literally at all. They may point to what the bible _actually says_ and ask the believers to explain why that is not to be taken literally but other things are. That isn’t taking the bible literally though is it? Yes. That’s the very definition of taking something literally. You can take what someone says literally without believing they are correct. If I say I “rolled on the floor laughing” and someone else says “No you didn’t. I was watching,” that person has still just taken me literally. And I would also argue against the idea that it’s about getting people to explain their reasoning. There may be the occasional person who just asks for clarification, like the OP here. But it’s almost always more about debunking or even just mocking beliefs. It’s “the Bible says this thing, but that is contradicted by this thing. This proves that Christianity is false, so stop being stupid and believing in that.” The point is that, if they really want to challenge Christian thought, they need to do more than read the Bible and assume that their literal interpretation is the only valid or possible one. Not only are there other ways of interpreting things, but there are even different literal interpretations! If they’re going to have a legitimate argument, it should be an informed one. Read up on at least the basics of how we reconcile the “gotcha” stuff. And just take the time to consider what counterarguments there can be. The various ways of handing the pi thing are just obvious with five seconds’ thought, for example. And stop just saying the same thing fundamentalists do, where you say we have to interpret everything in this one literal way, and if that’s false, then the whole Bible is false. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/53 "2018-05-19T19:17:09Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Yes. That’s the very definition of taking something literally. You can take what someone says literally without believing they are correct. If I say I “rolled on the floor laughing” and someone else says “No you didn’t. I was watching,” that person has still just taken me literally. If the preface to your utterance was a solemn and serious statement that everything you were about say was important and holy and significant then I’d be quite right to check with you whether your “rolled on the floor laughing” statement was to be taken literally because that could matters a great deal that some statements are literally true and some aren’t. I don’t know any atheist who says the bible has to be taken literally, I know lots of religious people who claim that it should, or at least bits of it should, different bits for different people of course. I also know atheists who ask the religious “is that bit supposed to be taken literally?” and " if that bit is supposed to be taken literally why does it clash with this other bit?" I suspect that is where you are getting confused. A request for clarity is not the same as taking the bible literally. The religious claim that bits of it are literally true. I don’t know any atheists that do. If I read another work of historical literature that is a mixture of fact, fiction and fable that is claimed to have a supernatural basis of monumental significance for the whole of mankind then I’d quiz those making the claim about which bits of the text are literally true and which aren’t and for them to explain contradictions and errors. You can’t do that without reference to the words that are actually used and if you are saying that such an inquisition would be me taking the text “literally” then I think we are using very different definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/54 "2018-05-19T19:34:15Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > So, to be fair, this is sort of a joke question, but I’m interested in hearing serious answers to it from believers and/or Bible scholars and/or comparative religion majors. > > So I was reading Genesis 1 earlier today (as you do), and something struck me : for the first three “days” (it never actually says “on the first day, yadda yadda”, did y’all know that ? I didn’t ! Floored me. Pop culture osmosis is shit) God does something, and then it says “and there was an evening, and there was a morning : that was the Nth day”. > > However, it’s only on the fourth day that God reportedly sets up the whole lighting system that separates night and day to begin with. Soooo whence the days before ? Was God just a con artist before that fourth day, performing cheap theatricals to make believe there was a day/night cycle ? “Now you see the Universe, now you don’t, is that your planet madam ?!” > > I’m sure the logical inconsistency has bugged people before, just as I’m sure leading Christian lights from Aquinas to Miley Cyrus have expounded on the subject and sort of retconned/handwaved it away, but how is that reconciled by Bible literalists and suchlike, really ? I mean it’s in the first few pages of the book. I’ve tossed fantasy or sci-fi books aside for lesser consistency crimes. What gives ? Is it a translation snafu, what ? It’s a pretty glaring error, along the lines of did Adam and Eve have belly buttons, and If Adam and Eve only produced three sons (Cain, Abel and Seth) where did the rest of the human race come from? And again after the great flood, if only Noah’s family survived, where did the rest of the human race come from? Kind of makes incest inevitable, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/55 "2018-05-19T19:44:19Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Sometimes I wonder if those days are terraforming steps that some super alien race made for us, seeding us on this planet which may have been rogue before their intervention, and relaying the story in a way that early humans could understand it for that time and one day further understand it’s meaning. > > But as pointed out above God created the day/nite cycle up front, adding sun/moon cycles later. So how were days measured before the sun and moon were created? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/56 "2018-05-19T20:18:21Z")
> [@DesertDog](#): > > [Really?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy) So, when evangelicals claim the manuscripts do not affirm anything that is contrary to fact, and the atheists point out that Pi isn’t really 3, it’s the _atheists_ who are at fault? Interesting take. The atheists are at fault because they take the phrase “10 cubits” and mentally substitute “10.000000 cubits, and not a hairs breadth more or less” and they take the word “round” and substitute “geometrically exact perfect circle.” That is an unreasonable interpretation of the text. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/57 "2018-05-19T21:03:21Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > The atheists are at fault because they take the phrase “10 cubits” and mentally substitute “10.000000 cubits, and not a hairs breadth more or less” and they take the word “round” and substitute “geometrically exact perfect circle.” That is an unreasonable interpretation of the text. If people don’t claim more than the text will bear I don’t see it as a problem for non-believers. The “value” of pi in the bible is exactly what one would expect if it were a cobbled together approximation by a fairly basic bronze-age civilisation and that’s fine. Once people start claiming divine inspiration by a supernatural being then it is perfectly fair that the text should be held to a higher standard. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/58 "2018-05-19T22:51:31Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > If the preface to your utterance was a solemn and serious statement that everything you were about say was important and holy and significant then I’d be quite right to check with you whether your “rolled on the floor laughing” statement was to be taken literally because that could matters a great deal that some statements are literally true and some aren’t. If you’re saying that the more “important and holy and significant” a statement or narrative is claimed to be, the more important it is to know how to take it (literally vs. otherwise), I agree. If you’re saying that the more “important and holy and significant” a statement or narrative is claimed to be, the more literally it is meant to be taken, I strongly disagree. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2018, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/59 "2018-05-19T23:42:23Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > If people don’t claim more than the text will bear I don’t see it as a problem for non-believers. The “value” of pi in the bible is exactly what one would expect if it were a cobbled together approximation by a fairly basic bronze-age civilisation and that’s fine. Once people start claiming divine inspiration by a supernatural being then it is perfectly fair that the text should be held to a higher standard. Actually, since they don’t actually present pi and instead present measurements of a physical, measurable object, I’m kind of surprised by the imprecision. You want to measure something round, like a basin, you run a cord around it and then stretch out and measure the cord. That ain’t rocket math. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318/60 "2018-05-20T03:08:51Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Not if your literalist is allowed to lapse into interpretist when it suits him. In fact, literalism is one of the most interpreted ways of going about it, because literalism doesn’t fit the facts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-dumb-bible-question/814318.md?page=4)