The Bible And Science: Pi (Take 2)

[Windwalker]

Are you proselytizing Atheism? Proselytizing: attempting to convert others away from their religion...

Is pointing out errors considered proselytizing? This is considered a debate forum, right?

 

[Skwim]

.

"Then he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference (2 Chronicles 4:2).​

Thing is, it doesn't matter if they got the value of pi right or wrong. What does matter is that no "Sea of cast bronze could ever have measured ten cubits from one brim to the other, and have a circumference of thirty cubits.

Switching to imperial measurement for a clearer understanding,
If one assumes its diameter is correct, 180 inches, (10 cubits), its circumference would have to be 565 inches
If one assumes its circumference is correct, 540 inches (30 cubits,) its diameter would have to be 172 inches.

Taking the diameter as correct, the error of the claimed 30 cubits would be 25 inches (565-540)
Taking the circumference as correct, the error of the claimed 10 cubits would be 8 inches (180-172)

Now I don't know how accurately they measured such things back then, but to be off by more than two feet; 45 feet (540") vs apx. 47 feet (565") is darn large to my way of thinking. It's an error of almost a cubit and a half.

In any case, no matter how one judges the validity of the Bible, or where one wants to assign praise or blame, this gives lie to any claim of Biblical inerrancy.

.

 

[Shaul]

.

"Then he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference (2 Chronicles 4:2).​

Thing is, it doesn't matter if they got the value of pi right or wrong. What does matter is that no "Sea of cast bronze could ever have measured ten cubits from one brim to the other, and have a circumference of thirty cubits.

Switching to imperial measurement for a clearer understanding,
If one assumes its diameter is correct, 180 inches, (10 cubits), its circumference would have to be 565 inches
If one assumes its circumference is correct, 540 inches (30 cubits,) its diameter would have to be 172 inches.

Taking the diameter as correct, the error of the claimed 30 cubits would be 25 inches (565-540)
Taking the circumference as correct, the error of the claimed 10 cubits would be 8 inches (180-172)

Now I don't know how accurately they measured such things back then, but to be off by more than two feet; 45 feet (540") vs apx. 47 feet (565") is darn large to my way of thinking. It's an error of almost a cubit and a half.

In any case, no matter how one judges the validity of the Bible, or where one wants to assign praise or blame, this gives lie to any claim of Biblical inerrancy.

.

Nice job taking the verse out of context. If you read a few verses later it adds more information. “And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.” The problem is not that the scripture misstates the value of Pi. The problem is that you are interpreting it so that the diameter mentioned and the circumference mentioned are both of the same circle. The diameter is from one circle and the circumference is from a different separate circle.

 

[Shaul]

It is often suggested, among unbelievers, that the writers of the Bible at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the molten sea, which is circular, in the courtyard of Solomon's temple, was, in fact, ten cubits from the brim to brim and "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it" can not be mathematically correct because it is impossible to have any circle with these two values.

It's crucial to recognize that the decimal point didn't exist at that time and so it would have been pointless (pun intended) to refer to it that way. Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."

Using reason and research over baseless speculation of the skeptic the Bible student knows that the molten sea was 10 cubits, or 15 feet in diameter and it took a line of 30 cubits, or 45 feet to encompass it. A ratio, by the way, of three was adequate for the sake of record at that time.

The error is not in the scriptures, it is in your misinterpretation of it. The diameter mentioned is from one circle and the circumference is from another different circle.

 

[Earthling]

The error is not in the scriptures, it is in your misinterpretation of it. The diameter mentioned is from one circle and the circumference is from another different circle.

Did you want me to take your word for it or were you holding off on further explanation for some reason I am blissfully unaware of?

 

[Skwim]

The diameter is from one circle and the circumference is from a different separate circle.

EVIDENCE!... EVIDENCE!... EVIDENCE!...Sorry, but simply believing it's so doesn't make it so. And 2 Chronicles 4 certainly doesn't support your claim.

.

 

[We Never Know]

EVIDENCE!... EVIDENCE!... EVIDENCE!...Sorry, but simply believing it's so doesn't make it so. And 2 Chronicles 4 certainly doesn't support your claim.

.

10 cubits in diameter and giving it a 30 cubits circumference is pretty close being this was thousands of years ago with limited knowledge including maths.
In all honestly it is not much different with our knowledge and we date something at +/- 100 million years.

They weren't exact and neither are we in current days.

It's all petty arguments that mean and add up to nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

10 cubits in diameter and giving it a 30 cubits circumference is pretty close being this was thousands of years ago with limited knowledge including maths.
In all honestly it is not much different with our knowledge and we date something at +/- 100 million years.

They weren't exact and neither are we in current days.

It's all petty arguments that mean and add up to nothing.

I agree. There is no need to go through all sorts of ridiculous verbal gymnastics. There is always a degree of error in any measurement. Back then measurements were almost certainly much less accurate than today. To only one digit of accuracy the Bible is correct.

 

[Skwim]

10 cubits in diameter and giving it a 30 cubits circumference is pretty close being this was thousands of years ago with limited knowledge including maths.
In all honestly it is not much different with our knowledge and we date something at +/- 100 million years.

They weren't exact and neither are we in current days.

It's all petty arguments that mean and add up to nothing.

Don't kid yourself. Back when 2 Chronicles is estimated to have been written, between 350–300 BC, the accuracy of measuring could be quite precise, especially so in temple projects involving valuable metals, and certainly wouldn't have resulted in the gross error implied in 2 Chronicles 4:1 1/2 cubits.

.

 

[We Never Know]

Don't kid yourself. Back when 2 Chronicles is estimated to have been written, between 350–300 BC, the accuracy of measuring could be quite precise, especially so in temple projects involving valuable metals, and certainly wouldn't have resulted in the gross error implied in 2 Chronicles 4:1 1/2 cubits.

.

Do you realise in 2000-3000 years we are going to look as bad or worse than they did back then? They will look back at us and laugh as we do at the people in the bronze ages.

 

[Skwim]

Do you realise in 2000-3000 years we are going to look as bad or worse than they did back then? They will look back at us and laugh as we do at the people in the bronze ages.

I honestly don't see humankind still around 2,000-3,000 years from now. But if they are, I think the civilizations will have devolved into hunters and gatherers, with a few of the elite perhaps owning farmers.

.

 

[We Never Know]

I honestly don't see humankind still around 2,000-3,000 years from now. But if they are, I think the civilizations will have devolved into hunters and gatherers, with a few of the elite perhaps owning farmers.

.

And the reason?

I don't see that. I think our knowledge and technology will keep growing, but so will the big problem of over population.
There may come a time when it's decided by the elite and powerful, to put it nicely, to do some population cut backs of the not so important because technology and advancement will be more important than life(over crowding).

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't understand the logic in that criticism. Why would it be a poor approximation if it was the extent of the knowledge of the people at the time? Why would you expect some "deity," which is just another word for "mighty" or "venerated" to write to the people of a specific time using a language or knowledge that is more advanced than their own? This isn't science fiction.

I don’t think this is ever intended as a generic challenge to the legitimacy of the Bible but a specific challenge to claims that the Bible is directly inspired by God and therefore perfect in every way. If you’re not presenting that specific image of the Bible, your assessment is perfectly reasonable.

 

[exchemist]

It is often suggested, among unbelievers, that the writers of the Bible at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the molten sea, which is circular, in the courtyard of Solomon's temple, was, in fact, ten cubits from the brim to brim and "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it" can not be mathematically correct because it is impossible to have any circle with these two values.

Can you support this claim with evidence?

I don't believe you. I think you are making it up, in order to bore us all with obsessive biblical trivia.

 

[David T]

It is often suggested, among unbelievers, that the writers of the Bible at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the molten sea, which is circular, in the courtyard of Solomon's temple, was, in fact, ten cubits from the brim to brim and "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it" can not be mathematically correct because it is impossible to have any circle with these two values.

It's crucial to recognize that the decimal point didn't exist at that time and so it would have been pointless (pun intended) to refer to it that way. Bible commentator Christian Wordsworth said: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."

Using reason and research over baseless speculation of the skeptic the Bible student knows that the molten sea was 10 cubits, or 15 feet in diameter and it took a line of 30 cubits, or 45 feet to encompass it. A ratio, by the way, of three was adequate for the sake of record at that time.

The title of the thread is wrong.

 

[Audie]

I challenge all skeptics to post the entire number pi on this thread. Thank you.

Because you know you can't even do it.

Here is a harder challenge. Admit that the bible
is at best only approximately acvurate (true).

 

[Shaul]

Did you want me to take your word for it or were you holding off on further explanation for some reason I am blissfully unaware of?

You have it reversed. There are two interpretations. One (the erroneous one) which requires that there is a circular basin which contradicts Pi, and another which is in harmony with the definition of Pi. Those suggesting the former is the right interpretation have the burden, not the latter.

 

[Shaul]

EVIDENCE!... EVIDENCE!... EVIDENCE!...Sorry, but simply believing it's so doesn't make it so. And 2 Chronicles 4 certainly doesn't support your claim.

.

You ignored the context of the verse you quoted. The passage includes this: “And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.” So II Chronicles actually supports me. That is evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, the creator of the universe isn't stumped by our current understanding of pi, is he? The humans he was addressing at the time were not familiar with it so, as the OP said, it would be pointless to use.

The value of fractions may have been known at the time, but I'm not sure of that myself, why don't you show me how you come to that conclusion. However, even so, it isn't entirely relevant because it wasn't necessary to give such a precise description.

Both the Egyptians and the Babylonians used fractions, although of different types. Both easily had the ability to give a better approximation to pi.

But that said, I agree this is a rather silly criticism of the Bible. It is using the standard approximation of the time. Which, again, just shows it was written by men to control other men. It is based on the knowledge and ignorance of the time. Exactly what we expect for a man-made book as opposed to a divinely inspired one.

 

[Polymath257]

I challenge all skeptics to post the entire number pi on this thread. Thank you.

Because you know you can't even do it.

π

int_0^1 4/(1+x^2) dx