1 Kings 7:23
23 And 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.
(New King James Version)
30 units for circumference, 10 units for radius.
Science teaches us that the value of pi, the ratio of circumference to radius is about 3.14. Using 3 won't work. Yet proponents of a literal interpretation of the Bible would have you believe that if you have faith you can make a circle with a circumference of 30 and a radius of 10.
Is it possible the 1 Kings 7:23 is mistranslated from the Hebrew? Did God inspire the author to round?
Did God inspire the author of Genesis to round, regarding the Origin of the Species?
2006-09-19 06:28:38 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Jimbo,
You have to question your translation. Also I find that it's not great to depend on English translations. Here is what I read in that verse:
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. -KJV
1 Kings 7:23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. -NIV
So you are disputing the Bible over .1415962 . . . . cubits.
Have at it.
Maybe they should have used calipers and lasers to measure it with, ya think?
2006-09-19 06:49:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
See, now it's you who are taking the bible too literally.
Cubit's are a very loose system of measuring that they had back then. A cubit was based on the length from the hand to the elbow. As you can see, the problems that would happen when a tall guy and a short guy worked on the same project together.
The figures given in the bible should only be taken as approximations. 3 or 3.14. Close enough. Not worth getting your nickers in a twist.
2006-09-19 06:34:31 · answer #2 · answered by jp 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
jp - the cubit was based on the length from the elbow to fingertips - OF THE PRESIDING KING. Therefore, it was a known measurement, not something arbitrary...although this distance would change when a new king was innaugurated....
Lets face it - the Bible is wrong wrong wrong about just about everything. Bats as birds? Whales as fish? Come on now....we all (should) know that this is a book written in caves 2000 years ago, and hgolds no value today.
But well worded arguement.
2006-09-19 06:39:42 · answer #3 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. He totally was like "Hey y'all to save you some math, since that writing on stone tablets is a pain in the azz, just round to 3 OK? Since I am the LORD I can do whatever I want and nobody will ever notice"
Except then all these cool people called "Athiests" and "Agnostics" came around, and kinda messed that up.
wait for the smoters.
():-D
shadowgirl
2006-09-19 06:32:49 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. T, formerly known as Shadow. 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Diameter" of 10 - one brim to another is all the way across.
Pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter.
Just didn't want people to get any messed up ideas of science.
2006-09-19 06:39:47 · answer #5 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bible is NOT a book of mathematics, biology, geology, physics, chemistry, anthropology; it is a book written by ancient men chronicling their ideas about their imaginary god.
2006-09-19 06:31:45 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We are more precise now days. That's why we don't need the bible any more. There are far better books to use nowdays.
2006-09-19 06:31:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
off by .14? That must be the closest the bible has ever come to the truth...
2006-09-19 06:39:15 · answer #8 · answered by elwoodo0oo 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I like chocolate-peanut butter pi. LOL
2006-09-19 06:49:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ohhh so that's when the Bible is not meant to be taken literally.
when it's wrong.
gotcha.
so then, why is any of it taken literally?
2006-09-19 06:36:17 · answer #10 · answered by Southpaw 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋