how do you deal with different translation ?

[GBzone]

Actually apart from one other all modern versions have it HeavenS .Which can be demonstrated is a wrong translation .When it should be HEAVEN .

Actually the Hebrew word is e·shmim which is plural Heavens


peter = petros = peter small stone or pebble in greek <<<<<< that was an attempt a humor


[URL='http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm[/QUOTE']http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]

This I also have heard claimed .
Yet does not answer or resolve the problem and genuine argument as presented .

I have also spoken to a Rabbi and he said the word should be translated HEAVEN.

I have also heard it from Christians who say they understand Hebrew that it can be translated both ways .
That I can accept or find more reasonable .
Then it comes down to context .
That too I have presented and the why of HEAVEN.

About Peter . if it is understood that like unto Mary so with Peter some would take him and think of him above what they should.
Then as with Mary when she tried to command him or make Him do something at HER will at the marriage supper . He denied she had any authority or power over Him and said "Woman what has thou to do with me ,seeing that mine hour has not yet come"
So with Peter .God in His wisdom showed all of Peters weaknesses and failures and here that he was but a pebble or little stone or rock. and not THE Rock as of Deutronomy 32:4 "He is the rock, His work is perfect, for all his ways are judgement , A God of truth and without iniquity,just and right is he" as to Deut 32:15, 32 18, Indeed those who say otherwise it goes on in the same book about false rocks.
Thus it was not humor so much as teaching and comparison between Peter and Christ .
That you don't build an eternal church that even the gates of hell will have trouble with . Upon a man of Adam and in THAT respect a weak man and an unsuitable foundation for the church to be built on .
For did he not elsewhere talk about a "wise man who dug deep and built his house upon a rock"?
THE Rock is Jesus Christ and the revelation of who is and any mans faith in HIM (not another) will "overcome the world "

in Christ
gerald

 

[Ph8th]

QUOTE
Well I won't go into a long drawn out comment. There are many who have studied and say quite the opposite of what you have said. For me, I don't speak in old English, therefore don't want to read in it. I prefer the Nasb and ESV.

Lance I have always used a Kjv bible. When studying the reformation I got a 1599 Geneva bible and loved it. The 1611 Kjv is 95% copy of the Geneva bible. I was a member of a Christian site in the bible study forum there was a guy and a few followers that continued to tout the Kjv and condemn all other versions.
So I began to compare the scriptures, in doing so found that the NASB is the closest to a literal translation we can get in English.
I have been using an NASB since
I believe it is God that leads us to true understanding through revelation regardless of what ever version you use. His desire is that we seek Him, He will reveal understanding of Himself.
Think of how many times have you been driving or working and a knowing or understanding of study or situation is revealed to you? This is how God teaches / leads in my life
peter

I am on the greatest journey
That man can go through
It’s the journey that begins
When he s called by You
The journeys never ending
There is more to be had
It s the experiences of life
Whether good or bad
Times of joy times of toil
Times of hurt and pain
My need for You grows stronger
It never remains the same
My need is to have all of You
My heart shouts for more
Your mysteries vanish by asking
or knocking at your door
All l that I have is worthless
There is nothing I can do
My life is incomplete unless
its lived for you
So I continue on this journey
Its what I have to do
Is follow my heart
on this journey
My pursuit of you
Thank You
Jesus​

peter​

 

[Ph8th]

Actually the Hebrew word is e·shmim which is plural Heavens


peter = petros = peter small stone or pebble in greek <<<<<< that was an attempt a humor


[URL='http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm[/QUOTE']http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm[/URL]

This I also have heard claimed .
Yet does not answer or resolve the problem and genuine argument as presented .

I have also spoken to a Rabbi and he said the word should be translated HEAVEN.

I have also heard it from Christians who say they understand Hebrew that it can be translated both ways .
That I can accept or find more reasonable .
Then it comes down to context .
That too I have presented and the why of HEAVEN.

About Peter . if it is understood that like unto Mary so with Peter some would take him and think of him above what they should.
Then as with Mary when she tried to command him or make Him do something at HER will at the marriage supper . He denied she had any authority or power over Him and said "Woman what has thou to do with me ,seeing that mine hour has not yet come"
So with Peter .God in His wisdom showed all of Peters weaknesses and failures and here that he was but a pebble or little stone or rock. and not THE Rock as of Deutronomy 32:4 "He is the rock, His work is perfect, for all his ways are judgement , A God of truth and without iniquity,just and right is he" as to Deut 32:15, 32 18, Indeed those who say otherwise it goes on in the same book about false rocks.
Thus it was not humor so much as teaching and comparison between Peter and Christ .
That you don't build an eternal church that even the gates of hell will have trouble with . Upon a man of Adam and in THAT respect a weak man and an unsuitable foundation for the church to be built on .
For did he not elsewhere talk about a "wise man who dug deep and built his house upon a rock"?
THE Rock is Jesus Christ and the revelation of who is and any mans faith in HIM (not another) will "overcome the world "

in Christ
gerald[/QUOTE]

Gerald,
I find when studying it is better to go to the source and not depend on what others tell me. Yes Jesus is The Rock-Petra not petros. Your reference to the scripture in Luke (digging down seeking security on a foundation that cannot be moved JESUS !) WOW! Great stuff! ........anyway if you go back ot the Greek you will find the word Petran which is The Rock where as the Kjv says a rock.
Again God writes His word on our hearts He is the source of all true understanding....

peter

 

[Abdicate]

Matt 16:18 reads:

Greek
τη πετρα = the rock

τη = the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc
πετρα = 1. a rock, cliff or ledge
a. a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
b. a rock, a large stone
c. metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

Hebrew (Modern)
הסלע = the rock
ה = the
סלע = rock, bedrock

 

[Ph8th]

Thank you for clearing up the confusion
Petros = peter = small stone or pebble
TH = The
Petra = ROCK or bedrock

peter

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat16.pdf

 

[GBzone]

This I also have heard claimed .
Yet does not answer or resolve the problem and genuine argument as presented .

I have also spoken to a Rabbi and he said the word should be translated HEAVEN.

I have also heard it from Christians who say they understand Hebrew that it can be translated both ways .
That I can accept or find more reasonable .
Then it comes down to context .
That too I have presented and the why of HEAVEN.

About Peter . if it is understood that like unto Mary so with Peter some would take him and think of him above what they should.
Then as with Mary when she tried to command him or make Him do something at HER will at the marriage supper . He denied she had any authority or power over Him and said "Woman what has thou to do with me ,seeing that mine hour has not yet come"
So with Peter .God in His wisdom showed all of Peters weaknesses and failures and here that he was but a pebble or little stone or rock. and not THE Rock as of Deutronomy 32:4 "He is the rock, His work is perfect, for all his ways are judgement , A God of truth and without iniquity,just and right is he" as to Deut 32:15, 32 18, Indeed those who say otherwise it goes on in the same book about false rocks.
Thus it was not humor so much as teaching and comparison between Peter and Christ .
That you don't build an eternal church that even the gates of hell will have trouble with . Upon a man of Adam and in THAT respect a weak man and an unsuitable foundation for the church to be built on .
For did he not elsewhere talk about a "wise man who dug deep and built his house upon a rock"?
THE Rock is Jesus Christ and the revelation of who is and any mans faith in HIM (not another) will "overcome the world "

in Christ
gerald

Gerald,
I find when studying it is better to go to the source and not depend on what others tell me. Yes Jesus is The Rock-Petra not petros. Your reference to the scripture in Luke (digging down seeking security on a foundation that cannot be moved JESUS !) WOW! Great stuff! ........anyway if you go back ot the Greek you will find the word Petran which is The Rock where as the Kjv says a rock.
Again God writes His word on our hearts He is the source of all true understanding....

peter[/QUOTE]

Matt 16:18 reads:

Greek
τη πετρα = the rock

τη = the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc
πετρα = 1. a rock, cliff or ledge
a. a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
b. a rock, a large stone
c. metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

Hebrew (Modern)
הסלע = the rock
ה = the
סלע = rock, bedrock

The source is God .For all scripture is inspired by God. Not Hebrew or indeed Greek. It is to the Spirit of God we should lean on and let the scriptures speak or interperate themselves.
When it is clear that God is the Rock and Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built on and not Peter .Was that not clear already In English?
It is only not clear when people twist the scriptures and take a grain of sand of it and seek to build an inverse pyramid upon it .
Like telling lies you have to uphold the first lie with another and so on . A 'church ' that makes the assertion that Peter is the rock gets bigger the more unstable it becomes and the more lies are needed to 'support' it . One of which is infallibility . Only God is infallible . and man is not nor is the pope nor is a consensus decision .For the truth is not democratic .
But it does not change the Word of God ,nor the end of some who's end was long ago foreseen
What such a false doctrine is and does is mislead people to put their faith in the/a church and popes and not in God.
Faith IN GOD comes by hearing and understanding the Word of God . Not the words of religionists "who by their traditions have made the word of God of none effect."
That of course applies to all these apostles and self proclaimed prophets . Who blindly follow them as they do others.
A true anointed minister of God whatever they are will always lead men or bring men willing to follow to grow in grace and in the knowledge of God .Not fill their own coffers and seek to be lifted up on other peoples shoulders. For their calling is as laid out in Ephesians 2 .

You will have to put into context the above as to A rock and The rock. For I am not to sure what you are referring to.

In Christ
gerald

 

[Abdicate]

The source is God .For all scripture is inspired by God. Not Hebrew or indeed Greek. It is to the Spirit of God we should lean on and let the scriptures speak or interperate themselves.
When it is clear that God is the Rock and Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built on and not Peter .Was that not clear already In English?
It is only not clear when people twist the scriptures and take a grain of sand of it and seek to build an inverse pyramid upon it .
Like telling lies you have to uphold the first lie with another and so on . A 'church ' that makes the assertion that Peter is the rock gets bigger the more unstable it becomes and the more lies are needed to 'support' it . One of which is infallibility . Only God is infallible . and man is not nor is the pope nor is a consensus decision .For the truth is not democratic .
But it does not change the Word of God ,nor the end of some who's end was long ago foreseen
What such a false doctrine is and does is mislead people to put their faith in the/a church and popes and not in God.
Faith IN GOD comes by hearing and understanding the Word of God . Not the words of religionists "who by their traditions have made the word of God of none effect."
That of course applies to all these apostles and self proclaimed prophets . Who blindly follow them as they do others.
A true anointed minister of God whatever they are will always lead men or bring men willing to follow to grow in grace and in the knowledge of God .Not fill their own coffers and seek to be lifted up on other peoples shoulders. For their calling is as laid out in Ephesians 2 .

You will have to put into context the above as to A rock and The rock. For I am not to sure what you are referring to.

In Christ
gerald

Just quoting facts. Choose to interpret as you so desire.

 

[calvin]

Gerald,
I find when studying it is better to go to the source and not depend on what others tell me. Yes Jesus is The Rock-Petra not petros. Your reference to the scripture in Luke (digging down seeking security on a foundation that cannot be moved JESUS !) WOW! Great stuff! ........anyway if you go back ot the Greek you will find the word Petran which is The Rock where as the Kjv says a rock.
Again God writes His word on our hearts He is the source of all true understanding....

peter

The source is God .For all scripture is inspired by God. Not Hebrew or indeed Greek. It is to the Spirit of God we should lean on and let the scriptures speak or interperate themselves.
When it is clear that God is the Rock and Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built on and not Peter .Was that not clear already In English?
It is only not clear when people twist the scriptures and take a grain of sand of it and seek to build an inverse pyramid upon it .
Like telling lies you have to uphold the first lie with another and so on . A 'church ' that makes the assertion that Peter is the rock gets bigger the more unstable it becomes and the more lies are needed to 'support' it . One of which is infallibility . Only God is infallible . and man is not nor is the pope nor is a consensus decision .For the truth is not democratic .
But it does not change the Word of God ,nor the end of some who's end was long ago foreseen
What such a false doctrine is and does is mislead people to put their faith in the/a church and popes and not in God.
Faith IN GOD comes by hearing and understanding the Word of God . Not the words of religionists "who by their traditions have made the word of God of none effect."
That of course applies to all these apostles and self proclaimed prophets . Who blindly follow them as they do others.
A true anointed minister of God whatever they are will always lead men or bring men willing to follow to grow in grace and in the knowledge of God .Not fill their own coffers and seek to be lifted up on other peoples shoulders. For their calling is as laid out in Ephesians 2 .

You will have to put into context the above as to A rock and The rock. For I am not to sure what you are referring to.

In Christ
gerald

You seem to have shifted from arguing for truth in translation to an anti RCC rant.

I find the following also teaches that Christ is the 'rock':
2Sa 22:47. "The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock, and exalted be my God, the rock of my salvation,
compare this with Peter's declaration
Mat 16:16. Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Mat 16:17. And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
underline emphasis' added.
No amount of linguistic gymnastics can make Jesus' words mean that Peter was to be the foundation of the Church,( the foundational rock upon which an edifice is erected)

Context has a huge role to play in translation and in study of the Scriptures....also a huge dose of common sense.

 

[GBzone]

You seem to have shifted from arguing for truth in translation to an anti RCC rant.

I find the following also teaches that Christ is the 'rock':
2Sa 22:47. "The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock, and exalted be my God, the rock of my salvation,
compare this with Peter's declaration
Mat 16:16. Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Mat 16:17. And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
underline emphasis' added.
No amount of linguistic gymnastics can make Jesus' words mean that Peter was to be the foundation of the Church,( the foundational rock upon which an edifice is erected)

Context has a huge role to play in translation and in study of the Scriptures....also a huge dose of common sense.

I was simply showing how people can translate/interprate the scriptures to suit themselves . The Roman catholic churches use of that one verse of scripture to build their edifice upon is absurd let alone not accurate .
But others have equally built inverse pyramids on a grain of sand also.
My response then was to anothers use of that scripture and my answering it . Not then specifically aimed at Rome as such.
Not that I see any difference between what she taught at the reformation to what she teaches now . She was wrong then on these things and she is still wrong in these matters.

In Christ
gerald

 

[Major]

just wondering

One at a time!

 

[calvin]

Really I'd say there are very few translations but many many paraphrases.
And paraphrases such as the living bible and the Niv, I leave strictly alone.

 

[GBzone]

Really I'd say there are very few translations but many many paraphrases.
And paraphrases such as the living bible and the Niv, I leave strictly alone.

To get back to the word "HEAVEN" in Genesis 1:1 .

It can be translated either plural and singular .Depending on the context and in this context it is HEAVEN .

If you insist it is plural you will have to resolve why from verse 2 onwards the scriptures are ONLY talking about the EARTH till th end of the chapter for one thing.
and you will have to or should ask yourself the question if it is but the HEAVENS of earth . When did God create the HEAVEN of heaven as it were?
I put it to you that it was" in the beginning"

and it was not HEAVEN that was ion darkness but the EARTH.

in Christ
Gerald
ps It was not addressed directly to 'you ' but I know of no way to 'reply' without a lot of repetition of what was quoted before .

 

[calvin]

Well like this!
No quote needed, just launch into the subject, toss in a hand-grenade and duck for cover

What I know about the Hebrew language, you could print on the pointy end of a needle with a fence pole.
It seems to me that there is no need to get steamed about singular versus plural because it is apparent that there are more than one heaven/s..
2 Cor 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.
Where there is a 'third heaven' there must be a first and a second one.....maybe more, as Paul says, "I do not know, God knows."

 

[GBzone]

Well like this!
No quote needed, just launch into the subject, toss in a hand-grenade and duck for cover

What I know about the Hebrew language, you could print on the pointy end of a needle with a fence pole.
It seems to me that there is no need to get steamed about singular versus plural because it is apparent that there are more than one heaven/s..
2 Cor 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.
Where there is a 'third heaven' there must be a first and a second one.....maybe more, as Paul says, "I do not know, God knows."

Given Jesus said not one jot or tittle is unimportant .Then an 's' at the end of a word is not unimportant .
The serpent simply added N O T to the words of God that "came out of the mouth of God " and by so doing changed the truth "thou shalt surely die " into a lie ."Thou shall not surely die"
BY putting heavenS in chapter 1:1 misleads people into thinking that genesis 2:1 where it is rightly put as heavenS that both scriptures are talking about the same thing.
Thus I have seen a couple of 'versions' of the Bible ;notably the "Students bible" where Gen 1:1 has been rendered "in the beginning God created the SKY and the earth" An absurd rendition .
Yet if you have it as HEAVENS in Gen 1:1 then that is or could be taken as a reasonable rendition.
For genesis 2:1 is speaking about the Two heavens of the EARTH .
The one being the firmament with waters below and above it in verse Gen1:6 or thereabouts which was" called HEAVEN "
and the other where "he made the stars also " and in which resides the greater and lesser light .Which we now call 'space'
Thus we have the two heavenS of the Earth . and the HEAVEN where Gods throne is and all the host of it .

There we have three heavens .
God is a God of order . and we do well if we be willing to follow His order of things rather than make up our own .
For if we don't it will get confusing later on . For if we are wrong with the first step how much the more will be towards the end?

In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . The seen and the unseen . The spiritual and the earthly .

In Christ
gerald

 

[calvin]

see what I mean about tossing in hand grenades and ducking for cover?

 

[THALLON]

just wondering

by understanding the perspective of the writer,
for example,
Mathew was a tax collector, with connections I think he knew about the 30 pieces of silver,
mark was not an apostle but it is alluded that he was the young man in the garden who ran off naked, so he might have only been 15
and his gospel more focussed on wow did you see that miracle, wow did you see that,
luke was not an apostle, but we assume that he used mary as a major source of his gospel,
john was right there with Jesus in the inner courts, he knew people, he even let peter in.
when they were all in the garden the disciples lay down, then peter james john went a little further then jesus a little further,
then a big crowd turned up, so where is everyone standing?
its dark, its cold, your sleepy, theres torches and soldiers and Jesus is being kissed by Judas, whats going on...???
Peter is right there yet he still wants to know later who betrays Jesus and what Johns role is? does he still think John betrayed him?
You can see when peter denys Jesus why it is so forceful because earlier he cut off the servants ear,
the same servants relative questions him in the courtyard, so its not about denying Jesus as about peter saving his own skin,
Different translations can pick up different things, minor things,
but I think most bibles are pretty accurate.
If you really want a good understanding then you need to get right into history, culture, geography,
customs, eating habits, trade, coinage, political associations, religious movements, wow it can be really deep,
then you will really know....something....or nothing new.

 

[GBzone]

by understanding the perspective of the writer,
for example,
Mathew was a tax collector, with connections I think he knew about the 30 pieces of silver,
mark was not an apostle but it is alluded that he was the young man in the garden who ran off naked, so he might have only been 15
and his gospel more focussed on wow did you see that miracle, wow did you see that,
luke was not an apostle, but we assume that he used mary as a major source of his gospel,
john was right there with Jesus in the inner courts, he knew people, he even let peter in.
when they were all in the garden the disciples lay down, then peter james john went a little further then jesus a little further,
then a big crowd turned up, so where is everyone standing?
its dark, its cold, your sleepy, theres torches and soldiers and Jesus is being kissed by Judas, whats going on...???
Peter is right there yet he still wants to know later who betrays Jesus and what Johns role is? does he still think John betrayed him?
You can see when peter denys Jesus why it is so forceful because earlier he cut off the servants ear,
the same servants relative questions him in the courtyard, so its not about denying Jesus as about peter saving his own skin,
Different translations can pick up different things, minor things,
but I think most bibles are pretty accurate.
If you really want a good understanding then you need to get right into history, culture, geography,
customs, eating habits, trade, coinage, political associations, religious movements, wow it can be really deep,
then you will really know....something....or nothing new.

Mark was not an apostle ?
Luke was not an apostle ?

What Bible gives the impression that they were not Apostles?

Peter asked John at the last supper "WHO will betray Christ "
For ALL the disciples said "is it I " and it was only John who asked "who is it ?"
He knew it was not him. The Lord told him. Did he not then tell Peter?
He did not think John betrayed him because he also knew it was not John when he asked him to ask the Lord .

Perhaps a better perspective of each Apostles gospel is what they say themselves in the first sentence of each .
That is not complicated . Though grasping it is not so easy as you might think when you read all of each Gospel.

If they are all "pretty accurate" why then the need of so many?

But in engineering pretty accurate does not really cut the mustard .
and if you took the building of the tabernacle "pretty accurate" would have caused thousands of deaths .

Pretty accurate ? How close is that to the truth?

in Christ
gerald

 

[GBzone]

In my exp

see what I mean about tossing in hand grenades and ducking for cover?

In my experience when conversing with the lost if things are going anywhere good the devil will send someone along and throw in what I call a spiritual hand grenade to disrupt the conversation and the work of God.
Im not sure that was your intention nor I think have you understood my response to it .

in Christ
gerald

 

[THALLON]

Mark was not an apostle ?
Luke was not an apostle ?
What Bible gives the impression that they were not Apostles?
Peter asked John at the last supper "WHO will betray Christ "
For ALL the disciples said "is it I " and it was only John who asked "who is it ?"
He knew it was not him. The Lord told him. Did he not then tell Peter?
He did not think John betrayed him because he also knew it was not John when he asked him to ask the Lord .
Pretty accurate ? How close is that to the truth?
in Christ
gerald

Mark and Luke were not apostles, Luke may not have been even a disciple/follower of Jesus. It is clear from reading Luke that he obtains a lot of information from Mary.
The 12 Apostles were the 12 men so named, Luke and Mark are NOT on that list.
Matthew was not even a disciple for about the first year of Jesus's ministry, but he made the list.
Don't you understand my intention when I say pretty accurate? i'm not talking about engineering i'm talking about witnesses to an event,
two entirely different things.
the scriptures are accurate from the point of view of the writer, and the writers intention to convey information that is mostly accurate,
not to include trivial minute like Jesus was wearing brown sandals or took 15 minutes to walk from pilates place to see herod.
Each Gospel is not comprehensive but a summary perspective of events written some years later,
they are not supernatural divine manuscripts written on a hill by holy men dressed in white robes,
they were written by ordinary men like you and me but I believe they were moved to do so and the Holy Spirit brought those letters together.
Why are there four Gospels?
Well a testimony requires two or three witnesses, here we have four from four different perspectives,
and each gives us minor points of difference because if you were standing in the Garden when Jesus was arrested
you too would give a slightly different view of what happened.
Peter didn't know who betrayed Jesus even after the Resurrection because it says in John 21 20Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You....
and what about this guy john?
So why was that? did he think John was the betrayer because John had access to Jesus in the inner courts.
He saw Judas kiss Jesus in the garden but that was likely when a big crowd had gathered and it was not clear what was going on,
a couple of hours earlier john 13:28 makes it clear no one at table knew what Judas was doing.
As for me,
the Gospels are pretty accurate,
Jesus is the Son of God sent by God to earth as a human man without sin
to be a sacrifice for my sins so I can possess eternal life,
see ya there.

 

[calvin]

In my exp


<<Snip>>
Im not sure that was your intention nor I think have you understood my response to it .

in Christ
gerald

I am mystified that one who prizes engineering accuracy would make a response to something about which they are 'not sure'.

Years ago while working in a design office, I was checking a drawing for a precision cutting tool. The trainee who drew it used 22/7 for pi in his calculations.
Rather than jump head long into judgment, I asked him to go over his calculations with me. You see I was using 3.14159265 for pi in my calcs.
The fact is I would never have guessed that the education system here has degenerated so far that a student (by age 16 or so) would be allowed to use primary school arithmetic (about 10-11 year olds). So the lad wasn't stupid, he was just the victim of a forth rate education system.
So we never assume; when we are unsure, it is better to gather information, better to ask for explanations.