The Bible is not inerrant.

I thank Freeman for posting this debate as I have seen the argument in the past and desire to put the issue to rest. REBUTTAL 1. Fallacy of equating imprecision with errancy. My opponent is free to assert that 1 Kings 7:23 is imprecise, but it does logically follow that it is errant. My opponent interprets the language as though the measurements are exact. The scripture does not say "exactly" 10 or 30 cubits, nor were cubits exact measurements. [1] It is more reasonable to interpret these values as approximations, in which case my opponent's mathematical "proof" holds no water. Approximately speaking, pi is 3. Approximately speaking, the bible is correct here. My opponent must provide convincing proof that we should take these measurements as precise before he can argue that such imprecision equals errant. 2. Fallacy of observational selection/argumentum ad ignorantiam. The second fallacy depends on how intellectually honest my opponent is being. He either selectively omits the rest of the vessel's dimensions or he hopes to take advantage of reader ignorance on the subject. "23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. 24 Below the rim, gourds encircled it--ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. 25 The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. 26 It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths." - 1 Kings 7:23 - 26 The omission of verse 26 is grave indeed, as it reminds us that the vessel is a real physical object and not an abstract geometrical circle. In other words, it has a thickness. The scripture clearly tells us the bowl's diameter was measured from rim to rim, so there is no mistaking it as an outer diameter. However, the scripture is vague on whether the circumference is inner or outer. This leaves us with two possible equations: pi = 30 cubits / 10 cubits pi = 30 cubits / (10 cubits - 2 handbreadths) Assuming a cubit is 18 inches [1] (for the sake of calculations) and a handbreadth is 4 inches [2], we have the following two possible equations: pi = 540 inches / 180 inches = 3 pi = 540 inches / (180 inches - 8 inches) = 540 inches / 172 inches = 3.13953488372093 Again, neither value is precise, but the approximations are correct. In fact, when you consider that the cubits were measured using string and someone's arm length, the values make mathematical sense. After all, a calculation of pi can only be as precise as the measurements used in the equation. 3. Hebrew is alphanumeric and may store a more mathematically accurate adjustment. The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric, and each letter may also be used as a number with a predefined value. Usually, the Hebrew word for circumference is "qv," whose numerical value is 106 [3]. However, in this passage, the alternate spelling of the same word, "qvh," is used, whose numerical value is 111 [3]. If the ratio of 111/106 (qvh/qv) is applied to the measurement of 30 cubits, then we have the following formula: pi = (30 cubits * (111 / 106)) / 10 cubits = 31.41509433962264 cubits / 10 cubits = 3.141509433962264 This still does not get as precise as the value we know today, but it should serve to show the readers that much of what we interpret from any ancient writing should take into account the culture and language of that day, which my opponent has failed to do. CONCLUSION My opponent's argument is logically fallacious throughout. He fallaciously equates approximations with inaccuracies, and he either willfully or mistakenly ignores culturally relevant techniques of that era. Until Freeman explains why the measurements should be accepted as precise and why my alternative theories should be outright rejected, his arguments shall remain heretofore invalid and the resolution negated. SOURCES 1. http://www.britannica.com... 2. http://www.britannica.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...