a Christian
I was well aware that my sources had done some rounding. But I was also well aware that the men who wrote the Bible, under what I believe was God's inspiration, also often did some rounding of numbers. Some of the Hebrew kings' "40 year" rules were actually a year or two more or less than an exact 40. Some of the Bible's "70 year" prophetic periods were actually a bit more or less than an exact 70. 1 Kings 7:23 appears to tell us that Pi = 3, rather than 3.14. Many other examples could be cited of biblical "rounding" of numbers.
You are making yourself a laughing stock. For a start, rounding Pi makes it useless, non-functional and 5% out. Your approximations with solar dimensions et. al. also make any significance illusory, useless and non-functional.
"See! The power of god is inscribed in the very sky *gestures upward*. By divine power the moon is 402,000 times less bright than the sun!. The ratio of diameter and distance of the Earth-Moon and Moon Sun are roughly based on a multiple of 400. As we find the number 40 in the Bible, this proves there is a god!"
So, if the same God who rounded numbers in the Bible created the universe I have no problem in believing that He would also use numbers in His design of the universe which required a bit of rounding to serve as "signs."
And, inevitably with a flawed philosophy such as your own, you limit god's power. I don't think you realise the amazingly minute and exact tolerances we can see around us in the Universe. If you were aware of them you might be more cautious about saying 'god rounds things' in order to make your assertions easier. If god was as sloppy as you make out, it would be seen everywhere. Such 'sloppiness' can only be seen in areas that require sloppiness to fit your 'sign'.
Just because you say it is true doesn't mean it is. Not that I expect words or reason to change your mind, you're way too far gone.
You say I owe you an apology for calling you a liar. I don't believe I ever called you a liar. However, I evidently said something which you took that way. I'm sure I worded something I said to you poorly and in the process offended you. For that I am sorry. Please forgive me.
Would you please try to remember what you said and what I wrote. I am annoyed as you falsely used my first post as an example of how Biblical apologists were not treated with respect on this forum (when there was absolutely NO disrespect in that post). You lied about me, you didn't call me a liar.
So, apologise for what you did, not for something you didn't do.
So, according to you, when a "theory" does not immediately gain wide acceptance, and instead initially meets with much skeptisism and criticism, it should be dropped "as quickly as possible." It's a good thing men like Nicolaus Copernicus and Charles Darwin didn't listen to "wise" advise like yours, which by the way they got plenty of.
Slight problem; your theory requires making things up. Darwin could show inherited change in the fossil record. Copernicus could equally demonstrate without any doubt the Earth rotated round the sun. Copernicus and Darwin didn't make things up. They didn't round things to make the theory work.
Your theory requires fabrication, approximation and the stretching of facts to fit. To compare your theory to Copernicus or Darwin is rank intellectual dishonesty; theirs were works of science... yours is an exercise in self-important delusion.
I find it amazing you don't feel it necessary to defend your self-idolatry.
