Changes

==I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section...==

==I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section...==

...for many reasons.  First, the title is misleading, as the text points out.  There is no pi in the Bible (only unleaven bread--just kidding!), nor does the Bible make any attempt to define pi or ''e'' or or any other mathematical or physical constant.  Second, I think the subject is out of place in an article about mathematics.  Perhaps it should be a minor section in an apologetics-related article.  Or be omitted entirely, as it is not really a serios criticism, but more a "baby apologetics" thing that appeals to unsophisticated Bible skeptics.

...for many reasons.  First, the title is misleading, as the text points out.  There is no pi in the Bible (only unleaven bread--just kidding!), nor does the Bible make any attempt to define pi or ''e'' or or any other mathematical or physical constant.  Second, I think the subject is out of place in an article about mathematics.  Perhaps it should be a minor section in an apologetics-related article.  Or be omitted entirely, as it is not really a serious criticism, but more a "baby apologetics" thing that appeals to unsophisticated Bible skeptics.

Thirdly, while I appreciate that someone has done the work of gathering the atguments in one place, the wording could be better.  It says "Critics calim this, but thry are making the following assumptions".  Better to say "Critics say this but they are wrong for thses reasons."  You do not know what someone else's assumptions are.

Thirdly, while I appreciate that someone has done the work of gathering the atguments in one place, the wording could be better.  It says "Critics claim this, but they are making the following assumptions".  Better to say "Critics say this but they are wrong for these reasons."  You do not know what someone else's assumptions are.

Fourthly, a minor point.  If you opt to keep this section, you might point out that when critics complain that the Bible rounds the circumference to a multiple of ten instead of something more precise (say, 31.4 cubits), they are being inconsistent, because that number is also imprecise.  Because pi is irrational, there is no number that could be contained (in a finite Bible) that could give the measurement exactly.  What the baby skeptics are doing here is setting an impossible condition for precision, then saying that if the Bible is imprecise it is not inerrant (another big leap in logic), and hoping that no one will notice the flaws in their reasoning.

Fourthly, a minor point.  If you opt to keep this section, you might point out that when critics complain that the Bible rounds the circumference to a multiple of ten instead of something more precise (say, 31.4 cubits), they are being inconsistent, because that number is also imprecise.  Because pi is irrational, there is no number that could be contained (in a finite Bible) that could give the measurement exactly.  What the baby skeptics are doing here is setting an impossible condition for precision, then saying that if the Bible is imprecise it is not inerrant (another big leap in logic), and hoping that no one will notice the flaws in their reasoning.