Does the Bible really say that the value of pi is three?

[McCulloch]

Does the Bible really say that the value of pi is three?

Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference. Under its brim gourds went around encircling it ten to a cubit, completely surrounding the sea; the gourds were in two rows, cast with the rest. It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east; and the sea was set on top of them, and all their rear parts turned inward. It was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom; it could hold two thousand baths.

[Jester]

You'd think an all-knowing being like God would have taken into consideration the controversy he would cause by not making sure his writers got their facts exact on this ocassion.

I'm not sure why. God seems to allow people to make mistakes in all other ways. Moreover, I don't see how the issue of math gets in the way of the theology.

Actually, I don't question the creator. Only those humans who wrote the bible.

Good for you. Questioning is good, and I personally am in full agreement that humans did write the Bible (I simply happen to agree with their claims). I don't, however, see that we need to accept every point of the Bible as being absolutely true in order to accept its basic position as truth. This seems like a false dichotomy.

[Jester]

With each section of any book I've ever read, I try to ask myself "what is the point the writer is getting at?"

If only mainstream Christianity took this viewpoint with the entire Bible...

Indeed. We'd have a lot less insistence on completely moot points. I think most of us (Christians and non-Chrisitains alike) are guilty of ignoring the central point when interpreting the Bible.

[Beto]

I don't, however, see that we need to accept every point of the Bible as being absolutely true in order to accept its basic position as truth. This seems like a false dichotomy.

Isn't the basic position of the Bible, that it is the Word of God? How does a Christian start from this premise, and then get to decide what to accept or not? I can read the Bible and find useful and less-than-useful lessons in it, but that doesn't make me a Christian.

Do you agree a Christian must recognize that the Bible is the Word of God? If he doesn't, he can call himself Christian, but isn't he making up his own religion?

[Jester]

I don't, however, see that we need to accept every point of the Bible as being absolutely true in order to accept its basic position as truth. This seems like a false dichotomy.

Isn't the basic position of the Bible, that it is the Word of God?

No, actually (though I can see how one would be left with this impression). The Bible does not refer to itself as the “word of God”, that is a Church tradition which always seems to be assumed to be scriptural.

How does a Christian start from this premise, and then get to decide what to accept or not? I can read the Bible and find useful and less-than-useful lessons in it, but that doesn't make me a Christian.

Do you agree a Christian must recognize that the Bible is the Word of God? If he doesn't, he can call himself Christian, but isn't he making up his own religion?

Aside from my comment above, I would add that there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that one is required to get every detail of theology correct before becoming Christian. While it is possible to take away some good advice from the Bible without converting to the religion, it is not possible to believe in Christ as son of God and savior without being Christian regardless of what one thinks about specific references. Personally, my pastor (years ago) was the first person that I heard argue that the Bible is not inerrant.

[anu]

Are you saying light didn't exist before our sun? I mean, I like our sun and all... it's yellow, got lots of hydrogen, I like to draw mine with a smiley face. But I'm pretty sure that scientists now believe that light pre-dates the Sun's existence.

I hear you. If I remember right (I only read a few pages of the Bible ), there were mornings (supposedly after nights) after the creation of the first Light. My question is what happened to the first Light? Why was there a need to create the sun? I am thinking that those TWO sources of light could have toasted the Adam's family.

I apologize to the mods for deviating from the original topic. Looks like somebody has an answer to this question so be it.