Q:Value of pi
GeorgeNestor
Hi-
I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3). Pi is the ratio of
the circumference (C) of a circle to it's Diameter(D) so that C=pi*D.
If somebody could give me a book and verse of that, I'd appreciate it.
It is perhaps some survaying of land or description of the
circumference of a City or something. Thanks
gne...@concentric.net
Mark D. Kluge
In article <531fgd$a...@netsrv2.spss.com>, gne...@cris.com says...
In the Bible the passages you are looking for are:
1 Kings 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was
round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty
cubits did compass it round about.
2 Chronicles 4:2
Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass,
>and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass
it round about.
So if it is assumed that the bathtub was circular (not oblong), and that the
ten cubit diameter and 30 cubit circumference both refer consistently to
either interior or exterior circumferences, then the ratio of circumference
to diameter of the circle was believed to be equal to 3.
Mkluge
Bob Felts
In article <531fgd$a...@netsrv2.spss.com>, gne...@cris.com (GeorgeNestor) wrote:
| Hi-
|
| I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
| that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
| the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3). Pi is the ratio of
| the circumference (C) of a circle to it's Diameter(D) so that C=pi*D.
| If somebody could give me a book and verse of that, I'd appreciate it.
| It is perhaps some survaying of land or description of the
| circumference of a City or something. Thanks
2 Chronicles 4:2:
Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from rim to rim,
and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.
Ignoring round-off and significant digits in measurement, someone
might then conclude that the Bible teaches that pi is 30/10 or 3.
I just wish I was as accurate in some of my measurements... ;-)
__|_______ Through His love and through a ram,
| He saved the son of Abraham...
| Bob Felts But God demonstrates His own love for us,
| wr...@mindspring.com in that while we were still sinners,
| http://www.mindspring.com/~wrf3 Christ died for us.
EgwEimi
There is a crude estimate of pi given at 1 Kings 7:23, where a
round object's circumference and diameter are measured.
Frank Daniels
Bart Goddard
GeorgeNestor wrote:
> I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
> that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
> the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3).
The famous reference is I Kings 7:23 ( and 2 Chronicles2:2) from
which pi can be _infered_ to be 3. However, there is more to the
story. Let me say two things:
1. In math, we think it's amazing that irrational numbers can
be so closely approximated by rational numbers with small
denominators. For instance, pi =3.14159... is about
22/7 = 3.142857.... This is remarkable accuracy for a denominator
of only 7. Rather than only being within 1/14, we find that we are
nearly within 1/1000 of the true value. There is a whole
branch of math that deals with "rational approximations". There
is a standard sequence of really, really good approximations
(see a number theory text with a chapter on "continued fractions"0
that can be generated for any irrational number. For pi, that
sequence is:
3, 22/7, 333/106, 335/113, 104348/33215, ....
I leave the interested student to show the remarkable accuracy
of these fractions. 333/106 is within 0.00008 of the true
value of pi.
2. There is a non-crackpot paper by a Hebrew Scholar:
Shlomo Edward G. Belaga
C.~N.~R.~S., Universite Louis Pasteur
7, rue Rene Descartes
F-67084 STRASBOURG Cedex FRANCE
On The Rabbinical Exegesis of an Enhanced Biblical Value of pi
that shows that the number 333/106 is encoded in the 1 Kings
passage. It is a "LaTeX" document, and has been making
the rounds on various newsgroups: Try this to find it:
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/pi.html
Or, if you're interested, I could snail mail anyone a copy. Email
me privately, and be prepared to send a SASE to me.
Roughly, there is a tradition that some words in the text
are written differently than they are spoken. Such differences
indicate a double meaning and such usage is _typical_. In
the case of the I Kings passage, the word "line" is written one
way and spoken another. From the paper:
In our case there is such a disparity for the word "line":
in Hebrew, it is written as `` QVH (Qof, Vav, Hea)'', but it
has to be read as `` QV (Qof, Vav)'' (the reader is advised
to look at any edition of the Hebrew Bible with the Hebrew text
and its translation; all disparities are either marked by an
atersik, or the reading version is written on the margins).
Tradition asserts that not only does this disparity testify to
an approximate character of the given length of the
"line" circling around the ``sea''(tank), --- a much more
accurate approximation to pi,... is hidden
in the choice of the written version!
The paper goes on to explain the Hebrew numbering system
and that QVH = 111 and QV=106, giving the fraction 111/106
as the ratio by which 3 misses pi.
Well, it's an interesting paper, but you have to know the math
AND the Hebrew to get the full effect.
Bart
Joseph W. Gaut
On 3 Oct 1996, GeorgeNestor wrote:
> Hi-
>
> I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
> that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
> the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3). Pi is the ratio of
> the circumference (C) of a circle to it's Diameter(D) so that C=pi*D.
> If somebody could give me a book and verse of that, I'd appreciate it.
> It is perhaps some survaying of land or description of the
> circumference of a City or something. Thanks
Here's a gleaning from the math history list.
The value of pi=3 in 1 Kings 7:23 is based on the plain
meaning of the text. However, there is a rabbinical exegesis
of this text which yields the value pi=3.1415094...
ref. "On the Rabbinical Exegesis of an Enhanced Biblical
Value of pi", Shlomo Edward G. Belaga, Proceedings of the
Canadian Society for the History and Philosophy of Mathematics,
Volume 4, 1991: 93-101.
I have some additional information tucked away some place.
Kind Regards,
Joe Gaut
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of
kings is to search out a matter. (Prov. 25:2)
http://www.netdot.com/jwg7192/ "A Few Christian Writings"
Warren B. Hapke
GeorgeNestor (gne...@cris.com) wrote:
: Hi-
:
: I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
: that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
: If somebody could give me a book and verse of that, I'd appreciate it.
:
I assume that you're referring to basin in front of the altar in the temple
of Solomon (1 Chronicles 4:2):
Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim
to brim, and five cubits hight, and a line of thirty cubits measured
its circumference. (RSV)
1 Kings 7:23 has the same figures. I'm not an inerrantist, but there
are a few points to bear in mind here:
1. The verse says nothing about pi. Since the Hebrews weren't the
mathemeticians the Greeks were, I don't know if they even had the
idea of pi and other mathematical constants.
2. There's a known tendency for ancient writers in all cultures
to use round numbers. In other words, there's a good chance
that neither the 10 nor the 30 cubit figure is perfectly exact.
I don't go to the Bible to find the value of pi. If you think the Bible
is a perfect book, unflawed in even the smallest detail, this verse
might require some sort of explanation. Most Christians and Jews will
have no problems whatsoever with these verses.
Warren B. Hapke
wbh...@prairienet.org
garyj
In article <531fgd$a...@netsrv2.spss.com>, gne...@cris.com says...
>
>Hi-
>
> I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
>that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
>the circumference (C) of a circle to it's Diameter(D) so that C=pi*D.
>circumference of a City or something. Thanks
>gne...@concentric.net
>
>
Yes, your reference is 1Kings 7:23. The criticisms given for this
"inaccuracy" are not justified because the writer is not refering to
mathmatics or "precision machine figures". The reference is to a large metal
"bowl" about 15 feet diameter. a 3/1 ratio is "accurate enough for government
work" on something this large. It's good to remember that the Bible is not a
high school math 101 book.
Hope this helps.
--
God Bless,
garyj
********************************************
* If this were a contest of right living *
* I'd hope we both win *
********************************************
* PHOTO IMAGING & BIBLE STUDY *
* HOME PAGE *
* http://www.empirenet.com/~garyj *
********************************************
Jarrod J. Williamson
GeorgeNestor (gne...@cris.com) wrote:
> Hi-
> I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
> that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
> the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3). Pi is the ratio of
> the circumference (C) of a circle to it's Diameter(D) so that C=pi*D.
> If somebody could give me a book and verse of that, I'd appreciate it.
> It is perhaps some survaying of land or description of the
> circumference of a City or something. Thanks
> gne...@concentric.net
I don't remember exactly where it is, but it may be in Kings or Samuel. It has
to do with the dimensions of the pillars of Solomon's Temple. However, I wouldn't
take it too seriously. For the Biblical writer who was giving the dimensions of
these pillars, I am sure he wasn't too concerned with the difference between 3 and
3.1415 ...
jarrod
s...@bit.net.au
In article <531fgd$a...@netsrv2.spss.com>,
gne...@cris.com (GeorgeNestor) wrote:
>Hi-
>
> I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
>that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
>the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3). Pi is the ratio of
>the circumference (C) of a circle to it's Diameter(D) so that C=pi*D.
>If somebody could give me a book and verse of that, I'd appreciate it.
>It is perhaps some survaying of land or description of the
>circumference of a City or something. Thanks
>gne...@concentric.net
>
>
Hope this helps,
Shane.
Special Agent Orange
gne...@cris.com (GeorgeNestor) wrote:
>Hi-
> I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
>that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
>the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3).
The verse you refer to is II Chr 4:2.
One must consider that the verse does not specify inside and outside
radii. It's certainly not worth going to hell over.
I have no problem with pi represented by 3, or 3.14, or 3.14159. There
is nothing wrong with saying that there are 365 days in the year even
though 365.25 might be a better way of accounting for a leap year.
I have no problem with the statement in Isa 40 that the earth is
circular. An oblate speroid or ellipsoid is a better description.
There is a WGS 84 ellipsoid model with a major axis, minor axis and
eccentricity (sp?). But this model breaks down in the context of
terrain relief, hence Defense Mapping Agency developed Digital Terrain
Digital Data - the coursest level of which provides digital elevation
values in increments of 3 arc secs of lat and lon relative the WGS 84
ellipsoid. Higher levels of DTED provise more accurate representations
of the exact shape of the earth. Yet, if you look at the earth from
the moon, the projection of the earth on the retina appears to be, in
simple terms, circular.
My point is that overgeneralizations can be quite appropriate when
both parties understand the nature of the overgeneratization. Hence we
can speak of terms like "sunrise" and "sunset" knowing that, relative
to the sun, it's the earth that moves. The same holds true for the
Bible - see Mal 1:11.
EgwEimi
In addition to Mkluge's assumptions, it must also be assumed that the
measurements given were intended to be precise.
Frank
Marc W McConley
In article <5392h1$d...@netsrv2.spss.com> s...@bit.net.au writes:
>In article <531fgd$a...@netsrv2.spss.com>,
> gne...@cris.com (GeorgeNestor) wrote:
>>that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
>>the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3).
The measurements involved are reported to one significant digit. A
proper scientific deduction of the value Pi = C/D based on such data
therefore yields Pi = 3 +/- 1. This agrees with modern calculations.
-Marc
Michael Paul Johnson
GeorgeNestor <gne...@cris.com> wrote in article
<531fgd$a...@netsrv2.spss.com>...
> I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
> that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
> the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3). Pi is the ratio of
Also he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in
compass; and the height thereof was five cubits; and a line of thirty
cubits compassed it round about. -- 2 Chronicles 4:2 (ASV)
I wouldn't exactly call this a declaration that pi is 3. Rather, I would
consider it an indication of the accuracy of the measurements made on this
large, bronze, ceremonial washing basin, or possibly an indication that the
thing was slightly eliptic. Since a cubit is kind of an imprecise measure
by modern standards, anyway, 3 was probably "good enough" for that
particular measurement. I think this is the only indication of pi's value
in the Holy Bible. I certainly don't worry about offending God if I use
3.141592654 as an approximation of pi (even if that is likely to exceed my
ability to measure most things). :-)
--
Mike Johnson
m...@csn.net
http://www.csn.net/~mpj
PASCAL LAVERDIERE
In article <531fgd$a...@netsrv2.spss.com> gne...@cris.com (GeorgeNestor) writes:
>Hi-
>
> I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
>that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
>the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3). Pi is the ratio of
>If somebody could give me a book and verse of that, I'd appreciate it.
>It is perhaps some survaying of land or description of the
>circumference of a City or something. Thanks
>gne...@concentric.net
>
>
He [Solomon] made the sea of cast metal,
circular in shape, measuring
ten cubits from rim to rim
of thirty cubits to measure around it.
As you see it's seem in this verse that the pi value is
3 so the Bible would be false about this since pi value
is about 3.14159265. But if you take a closer look to the
jewish (original) text you see that the word for circumference
"QaVa" is written with an extra letter "QaVah". Since hebrew
letters are numbers this give Qava a value of 106 and QaVah 111
and if you take 111/106 it's almost equal to 3.14159265/3
giving only about 0.00026% not to bad for an approx done
1000 BC!
You can look at http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/pi.html
for more information
Pascal L.
Albert Hayden III
This discussion of pi raises an interesting problem:
If an error were to be found in the Bible, like this pi question,
by what criteria would we decide that it is significant (demonstrates
that passage to be from Man not God)?
Clearly, pi is not the topic of either passages concerned; nor is
mathemeatics. The intent was to describe, and the passage did this
qualitatively well, if not quantitatively perfect. This is reasonable,
since modern writers as well as ancient writers do this often. (Denver
is the Mile-High City.)
My opinion is that for an error to deserve serious attention, the error
must be part of the basis of a doctrine or a dogma. This value of pi is
not such a basis, as nothing serious would be changed if the author said
30 cubits or 31 cubits or even 31.4 cubits. God is still God.
But furthermore, if such an error were found, it would not invalidate
the entire Bible, but only that passage and maybe that book. So I
think:
1. Can the error be explained as style?
2. Is it the basis of a dogma or doctrine?
3. What does the error invalidate? (passage, book, Bible?)
Does anyone think I'm crazy? Anymore ideas?
Bert
Bob Felts wrote:
>
> In article <531fgd$a...@netsrv2.spss.com>, gne...@cris.com
> (GeorgeNestor) wrote:
>
> | Hi-
> |
> | I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran)
> hold
> | that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented
> the
> | the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3). Pi is the ratio > of
> | the circumference (C) of a circle to it's Diameter(D) so that
> C=pi*D.
> | If somebody could give me a book and verse of that, I'd appreciate
> it.
> | It is perhaps some survaying of land or description of the
> | circumference of a City or something. Thanks
>
Michael Paul Johnson
Bart Goddard <mat...@etsu.edu> wrote in article
<53928r$d...@netsrv2.spss.com>...
> GeorgeNestor wrote:
> > I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
> > that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
> > the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3).
>
> The famous reference is I Kings 7:23 ( and 2 Chronicles2:2) from
> which pi can be _infered_ to be 3. However, there is more to the
...
> http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/pi.html
The above page contains the following interesting observation that kind of
makes calling the above mentioned measurements a definition of pi sound a
little silly:
Another way of looking at it is taking into account the further information
a few verses later:
26 It [the above mentioned metal pool] was a handbreadth in thickness,
and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom.
It held two thousand baths. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
which we can imagine to be like:
`\ /' d = the measured diameter between
| | the extreme points of the rim
| |
| | but circumference is measured below
| | the rim at the actually smaller
| | diameter c
\_________________________/
>--------------d-----------------<
|/'
<-----------c-------------->
Given this information and assuming that exact numbers are given we could
even calculate the width of the rim, if we want to... [that is a home work
problem for the interested reader].
Brian Rush
In article <53928r$d...@netsrv2.spss.com> "Bart Goddard" <mat...@etsu.edu> writes:
>GeorgeNestor wrote:
>
>
>> I have read it that the Bible (and the Talmud and the Koran) hold
>> that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
>> the greek letter so transliterated) is three (3).
>
>The famous reference is I Kings 7:23 ( and 2 Chronicles2:2) from
>which pi can be _infered_ to be 3. However, there is more to the
>
>1. In math, we think it's amazing that irrational numbers can
>be so closely approximated by rational numbers with small
>denominators. For instance, pi =3.14159... is about
>22/7 = 3.142857.... This is remarkable accuracy for a denominator
>of only 7. Rather than only being within 1/14, we find that we are
>nearly within 1/1000 of the true value. There is a whole
>branch of math that deals with "rational approximations". There
>is a standard sequence of really, really good approximations
>(see a number theory text with a chapter on "continued fractions"0
>that can be generated for any irrational number. For pi, that
>sequence is:
>
>3, 22/7, 333/106, 335/113, 104348/33215, ....
>
>I leave the interested student to show the remarkable accuracy
>of these fractions. 333/106 is within 0.00008 of the true
>value of pi.
>
>2. There is a non-crackpot paper by a Hebrew Scholar:
>
> Shlomo Edward G. Belaga
> C.~N.~R.~S., Universite Louis Pasteur
> 7, rue Rene Descartes
> F-67084 STRASBOURG Cedex FRANCE
>
> On The Rabbinical Exegesis of an Enhanced Biblical Value of pi
>
>
>that shows that the number 333/106 is encoded in the 1 Kings
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You've just made two quite contradictory statements.
The simple explanation to this is that the "sea" referred to had
a broadened lip at the top, so that the diameter measured at
the top ("from one brim to the other") is larger than the diameter
around the main part where the circumference would have been
measured, giving a larger ratio of diameter/circumference and thus
a smaller (i.e., less than 3.14159...) ratio of circ/diam. Most if
not all pictures of such ancient tubs have this structure. That's
what the brim in the passage refers to.
Of course, even if this weren't the case, round-off would be a
perfectly good explanation, with all sort of independent
justification in scripture where we directly see that round-off
is used.
Kevin Finkenbinder
Michael Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> GeorgeNestor <gne...@cris.com> wrote in article
> <531fgd$a...@netsrv2.spss.com>...
>
> > that the value of pi (or rather the mathematic sysble represented the
>
> Also he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in
> compass; and the height thereof was five cubits; and a line of thirty
> cubits compassed it round about. -- 2 Chronicles 4:2 (ASV)
>
> I wouldn't exactly call this a declaration that pi is 3. Rather, I would
> --
> Mike Johnson
>[...]
It is also possible that it is an indication that it was not a perfect
cylinder. Brim to Brim is 10 cubits and around it was 30, but around it
where? It could be shaped as:
_____
\ / <--------------------+
| | |
| | <---Measure here +-not here.
| |
/___\
or some similar shape.
Not a theological standpoint, just a conjecture.
--
-TTFN-
|K< |E[ \V/ ]I[ |N|
Kevin Finkenbinder
Mike Gore
Just an aside for everyone:
SEA != RIM.
The whole chapter talks about the SEA - it would seem reasonable that
the object being measure is in fact the SEA and not the RIM of the
SEA [ nor or all the other features].
1KI 7:26 It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was
like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two
thousand baths.
Try this as an excersize: draw the picture and dimension
it using both assumptions. Only one drawing will have all of the
dimensions known - that drawing will have a SEA 30 cubits around
and a RIM of one handbreadth - about the same as the thickness...
MDBGrover
In article <53itnn$j...@netsrv2.spss.com>, Albert Hayden III
<aha...@virginia.edu> writes:
>This discussion of pi raises an interesting problem:
>
>If an error were to be found in the Bible, like this pi question,
>by what criteria would we decide that it is significant (demonstrates
>that passage to be from Man not God)?
I'd say any error would be significant if we are to believe the writing in
question was from YHVH. If the writing is by a person though, it isn't
such a big deal: "He's only human." Thus every error is simply further
evidence that the books were not written by an inerrant god, but by mortal
humans.
>Clearly, pi is not the topic of either passages concerned; nor is
>mathemeatics. The intent was to describe, and the passage did this
>qualitatively well, if not quantitatively perfect. This is reasonable,
>since modern writers as well as ancient writers do this often. (Denver
>is the Mile-High City.)
Exactly. Ancient WRITERS did this often.
>My opinion is that for an error to deserve serious attention, the error
>must be part of the basis of a doctrine or a dogma. This value of pi is
>not such a basis, as nothing serious would be changed if the author said
>30 cubits or 31 cubits or even 31.4 cubits. God is still God.
1+1=3 is not the basis of doctrine, but it's clearly wrong. The AUTHOR
said "30 cubits." A _correct_ statement would have been "ABOUT 30
cubits." So the author wasn't perect.
>But furthermore, if such an error were found, it would not invalidate
>the entire Bible, but only that passage and maybe that book.
No, an error doesn't necessarily invalidate a book. Every phone book in
the world has several hundred errors in it, but we use them every day. An
error simply means the author of the book isn't perfect. As we are told
YHVH _is_ perfect, an imperfect book clearly was not written by YHVH.
>So I
>think:
>
>1. Can the error be explained as style?
>2. Is it the basis of a dogma or doctrine?
>3. What does the error invalidate? (passage, book, Bible?)
>
>Does anyone think I'm crazy? Anymore ideas?
>
>Bert
No, I don't think you're crazy. Maybe you're just taking the idea of
inerrency too far.
Peace,
Grover.
Joshua Beck
>
> >My opinion is that for an error to deserve serious attention, the error
> >must be part of the basis of a doctrine or a dogma. This value of pi is
> >not such a basis, as nothing serious would be changed if the author said
> >30 cubits or 31 cubits or even 31.4 cubits. God is still God.
>
> 1+1=3 is not the basis of doctrine, but it's clearly wrong. The AUTHOR
> said "30 cubits." A _correct_ statement would have been "ABOUT 30
> cubits." So the author wasn't perect.
Does the word "about" exist in Hebrew? Do they use the word as we use
it? It could have been implied. Perhaps the default is to interpret
everything as having an "about" in front of it, and only require
exact-ness where it specifically says "exactly". We're talking about a
different culture, language and era. There's no need to jump to
conclusions.
All the best,
Josh.
MDBGrover
Joshua Beck <be...@darwin.ntu.edu.au> wrote in article
<558bnq$3...@netsrv2.spss.com>...
> In article <552vij$3...@netsrv2.spss.com>, mdbg...@aol.com (MDBGrover)
> > <snip> A _correct_ statement would have been "ABOUT 30
> > cubits." So the author wasn't perect.
>
> <snip> Perhaps the default is to interpret
> everything as having an "about" in front of it, and only require
> exact-ness where it specifically says "exactly". We're talking about a
> different culture, language and era. There's no need to jump to
> conclusions.
Same worms, different can. The above logic could be used to dismiss
virtually every number in the Bible. We could then ignore all of the
chronologies and numerations as "rough estimates."
I would be MORE than happy to dispense with literal readings of the Bible,
but many, no doubt, disagree.
Peace,
Grover.
Christopher B. Browne
On 6 Nov 1996 20:11:46 GMT, MDBGrover <mbgr...@erols.com> posted:
>> > cubits." So the author wasn't perect.
>>
>> <snip> Perhaps the default is to interpret
>> everything as having an "about" in front of it, and only require
>> exact-ness where it specifically says "exactly". We're talking about a
>> different culture, language and era. There's no need to jump to
>> conclusions.
>
>Same worms, different can. The above logic could be used to dismiss
>virtually every number in the Bible. We could then ignore all of the
>chronologies and numerations as "rough estimates."
>
>I would be MORE than happy to dispense with literal readings of the Bible,
>but many, no doubt, disagree.
The term to use is not "perfection" versus "imperfection," but rather
"precision" versus "imprecision."
I think everyone would be happy enough had the size been quoted as 31
cubits.
I don't think we'd quibble about the roughly half cubit by which that would
be out. Or would you have expected a culture that didn't have decimal
points to use the term "31.4 cubits"?
I think that projecting *our* tendancy towards specific kinds of precision
upon the writers of the Bible would represent a definite misreading of the
passage.
I'm going to be pedantic for a moment. Do you think that the builders got
out a micrometer to make sure that the "molten sea" could hold *precisely*
one hundred-score "baths" of water, and not one hundred-score plus one, or
one hundred-score baths less one?
If they approximated the measurement of the length around the tub using
a cubit stick along the inside circumference, they'd probably "correctly"
measure it at about 30 cubits. They'd get a different (larger) number by
tightening a string around the outside.
What can definitely be taken out of the passage is that the writers were not
neurotically precise with numbers as people tend to be today.
It would be silly to assert that Methuselah lived for precisely 353927.25
days, based on 969 years times 365.25 days/year. We could get sillier
still, and worry about how many of the century years would *not* have had
leap days. (I'm quite surprised that I don't see *that* presented more
often in discussions of Revelation...)
Taking Genesis *literally,* it would be foolish to assume that Methuselah's
age has been stated to precision greater than the nearest year.
I don't think many people in this newsgroup are actually capable of "taking
the Bible literally." I'm afraid I can't read "sheloshiym ammah,"
particularly in the correct vowelless script. (That's an approximate
transliteration of "thirty cubits.")
My background is in mathematics, computing, and (arghh!) auditing, so I've
got some idea of trying to deal with the precisions and imprecisions of
numbers. We use numbers today in ways that cultures of a mere hundred years
ago didn't.
We have measuring instruments both mechanical and abstract that never
existed before; we can be precise about things that nobody ever cared about
before.
Projecting our cultural expectations of precision onto the Bible can result
in misinterpretation.
I bought a cookbook yesterday; it's a turn-of-the-century book French
cuisine. It talks specific recipes, but it's remarkably *imprecise*
compared any "modern" cookbook that I've ever seen. None of the "50mL of
melted butter" or "40g of capers" that I'm used to seeing. A good cook
(better than I) can turn good interpretation of the book into some *serious*
gourmet food. And I've never had the scale to be able to figure out whether
or not that was actually 40g of capers.
My read on I Kings 7 is that they weren't *intending* to be very precise
when the passage was written. I'm not certain of what the structure of
Hebrew numbers was; I see 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, and 30 in use. I'd like to know
the Hebrew for "31."
- In decimal, "31" fits into text as well as "30."
- In "score" notation, "One score, ten, and one" is more awkward than "score
and ten."
If the notation makes (worthlessly-precise) values awkward to represent,
writers aren't likely to put in that generally-worthless level of detail.
And of course all of this is dealing with discrete values. People are
discrete. (Not necessarily *discreet,* but certainly discrete.) Distances
are *not* discrete, and in a less-technically-precise culture than ours,
those continuous values are pretty fuzzy.
I also see that they didn't bother trying to weigh the (non-discrete)
quantities of brass. They didn't care how much it weighed, which tells you
something.
It's entirely likely that rounding was taking place on the numbers; only
someone more concerned with numbers than with God get worried about whether
the size was 30 or 31 cubits.
But if someone chooses to interpret the passage "literally," and claim that
scienntists that claim that Pi is not 3 are "antiChrists," far be it from me
to prevent that interpretation.
--
Christopher B. Browne, cbbr...@unicomp.net, chris_...@sdt.com
"When you say 'I wrote a program that crashed Windows', people just stare at
you blankly and say 'Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*"
- Linus Torvalds
MDBGrover
Christopher B. Browne <cbbr...@wolfe.brownes.org> wrote in article
<560abf$p...@netsrv2.spss.com>...
<snip>
> >Same worms, different can. The above logic could be used to dismiss
> >virtually every number in the Bible. We could then ignore all of the
> >chronologies and numerations as "rough estimates."
<snip>
> The term to use is not "perfection" versus "imperfection," but rather
> "precision" versus "imprecision."
<snip>
Let's just accept that we cannot read this text literally (unless we reject
basic geometry, which I certainly would have liked to do more than once).
Peace,
Grover.
Charles R.L. Power
cbbr...@wolfe.brownes.org (Christopher B. Browne) writes:
>If they approximated the measurement of the length around the tub using
>a cubit stick along the inside circumference, they'd probably "correctly"
>measure it at about 30 cubits. They'd get a different (larger) number by
>tightening a string around the outside.
Quite. I'm an unbeliever, but I've always found this "God doesn't now
the value of pi" argument silly. Those arguing forget that that the
measurements were not of a geometric ideal but of an actual object, which
may not have been perfectly circular (correct that: which *certainly* was
not perfectly circular) in the first place.