At least, for variety, the angle of the direction can vary wildly...

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AO923_scient_G_20120220154702.jpg

And lest we forget, however tempting that may be...

The only movie I can think of is "Little Shop of Horrors", but I don't think that was quite the violent-plant image you had in mind...

To clarify: I wasn't saying that pi isn't a number - I was saying that it is an insufficient definition. It is not the same beast as a simple quantity.

Fine, then express -any- lifespan ever, -precisely-, as a "simple quantity". Once again, seeing that you personally don't like how it was expressed, how would you have preferred it be stated in the verse?

What in the world are you talking about? Odds are very good that her age is known and accurate. I've already granted you that there is some slim chance that her age is inaccurate.

You're not fairly representing the basic accuracy of the prediction. It has, unquestionably according to -both- me and you, gotten the maximum age right for billions of people (data points), and -possibly- one wrong. You, by some means of evaluating ages, expect an error rate less than that billions-to-one for your unstated methodology, to determine whether the bible's claim being -perfect- is, or is not, the case. What is that methodology, that you expect to give you better than that billions-to-one error rate, to "measure" the bible against? You haven't even described your criteria or methods in broad terms.

You keep egging me into some pissing competition for prediction of the future - and we wouldn't even know the outcome for 100 years? What are you trying to accomplish?

Mainly to get you to admit what you already know--that the claim is astonishing in its accuracy over the number of unknown people and years it addresses, even interpreting every debatable point in your favor that it is "off" by two years. If you think that's unremarkable, you should have no problem doing it yourself with the huge information advantage you have as a modern-day human. And, indeed, we could know what your relative performance is--I would not be surprised if you can't come up with a figure for, say, highest age in a single American state that isn't shown wrong from the lifespans of the the next decade. You can't do it, you know you can't, but refuse to give any credibility to the vastly-more-impressive case directly in front of you.

And... to be sure you don't forget, as we stipulate absolutely every debatable point in the discussion, for now, to make it as absolute as easy as possible for you: Within. Two. Years.

Again, though you continue to drop context, I said, and only require for my position (that subpoint of the 20 you hope to get to in your dreams), that the methodology by which we evaluate Jeanne be accurate with a billion-to-one ratio. If the absolutely most skilled, most honest, most knowledgable, evaluators in existence can beat that error ratio, they need to at minimum be given the top position at the NSA, with a corresponding raise. I have said nothing to denigrate their skills.

Enough of this. Enough of your evasion.

The next -hundred years-, then, of the maximum lifespan of man, stipulating for discussion the possibility in -every single point under discussion- to the -interpretation most advantageous to you-, with you starting with all statistical knowledge of all humanity at your fingertips, as opposed to that nomad with nothing, doing the same for a future 3000 years.

Your requirements are, relatively, nothing by comparison. Seriously, put up or shut up.

Good dodge. Now explain to (others, I could care less) how an irrational number isn't a number.

The context of the argument -presumes- a supernatural actor, and hence, all statements within in it presume such. They can be evaluated on logical terms -whether or not- the premise of a supernatural actor is accepted. That is the very premise at hand in the discussion, and all arguments -within- such a presentation, by the person asserting it, asserting that need only be logically consistent with that premise. Whether you accept it or not, has nothing to do with the veracity of the argument.

Really, take that Philo 101 course. It will become quickly apparently why -all- your habitual responses of the nature of "addressing" a detailed, internally-consistent argument as to, say, "Socrates drank the hemlock because of the philosophical and political reasons of..." with "Maybe Socrates didn't exist! Ha!" is nothing more that demonstration one is an uneducated dilettante in formal argument.

Your issues may be deeper than I thought. Refer to whichever of you posted these words recently.

not a number.

I'm tired of explaining this to you. -The prophecy-, by the very nature of what a "prophecy" is (and, per usual, this requires only acceptance of the reality of definitions on your part, not acceptance of the supernatural), can be considered both in terms of the time of original statement and to the future to which it applies. Giving a value of "120" accurately captures the future reality both in the original language -and- in the future numerical system to which it will be translated. Saying it that way, rather than "122 and six months", is -precisely- the type of prescient decision a future-seeing God could be expected to choose, apart from all the -other- reasons you've been provided.

And, I am now done with you.