This thinking was the result of listening to far too many Chuck Missler cassettes back in the day….

Sure… at least at some place in a positively curved space. Well, and if “He” existed.

For example, one can easily imagine a great circle on the 2-manifold surface of a sphere (e.g., the Earth’s Equator). Pi=2 in that case (the radius connects the equator to the North Pole).

So if this is posed within the context of Riemannian (non-Euclidean) geometry, it’s all good. If it’s just an example of pseudo-intellectual contortions to justify an irrational, anti-empirical belief, not so much…

If God really cared about us, He would have taught us math.

All we got was the Trinity.

LOL! Well done, sir.

…

The loopholes running around in that man’s mind must be tremendous. I’m embarrassed just to think that I might have to explain to someone what is wrong with that proposition.

So does this mean pi=3=1 ???? Now my math is really messed up.

All we got was the Trinity.

I think the pi = 3 example is worth more than you are giving it credit for. I do agree that the Bible isn’t an engineering manual – but not all fundamentalists agree with this.

For instance, I just opened to a random page in a book by Henry Morris, and he quotes Psalm 107:24 “These see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep.” This is used to support the idea that the Bible understood how complex the ocean floor is, and that it’s not just a simple sandy beach that smoothly goes down. (The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, page 268.)

The Bible teaches pi = 3 with far greater clarity than hundreds of other scientific facts that are supposedly in there. So the argument just has to be qualified a bit. Either fundamentalists’ approach to what the Bible is saying is fundamentally wrong, or the Bible teaches pi = 3.

Depending on context, it can be better still. When talking to someone with Morris’ approach to the Bible, there’s no need to qualify the argument. The Bible teaches pi = 3, according to them. Sure a reconciliation exists within evangelical Christianity, and even within some definitions of inerrancy, but it’s still a fair argument that Morris-type fundies are wrong.

Because in the case of the other Patriarchs, we’re interested in the first-born, after which comes an indistinct mention of “sons and daughters” in general, … whereas here we’re interested in Abraham, (that’s why he’s the one listed first), but who’s not the firstborn of Terrah. Terrah had his firstborn at the age of 70, and we can’t skip that (You can’t just say “Terrah lived X yrs and begat Abraham”, when he already gave birth to two sons before him: it’s wholly improper and disrespectful to do such). But what You can do is be honest and conflate the two things: the age he had his first-born, and the list of the other sons, containing the one You’re interested in. — Other times when the first-born is exchanged for another one are, for instance: Cain/Seth (due to murder); Reuben-Judah (due to adultery); Esau/Jacob (due to gluttony); David; etc. In this case, it was idolatry, in case you were wondering.

And no, the LXX has 205 yrs for Terrah, but with the addition “in the land of Haran” (which doesn’t “harmonize” anything, but only adds more yrs to Terrah’s age, and more mystyery to the exact age he had at death).

And while God said to Abraham “go out of thy father’s house etc”, his father was together with him and his brother in Haran, so I don’t understand what contradiction You see there. Same with the city of Nahor, where Abraham’s brother Nahor had settled.