1 Kings 7:23
Read it and weep.
The circumference of the circle is 30 cubits, and the diameter is 10 cubits. As Circumference=pi times diameter, according to the Bible pi is 3.
3 does not equal 3.1415.... and if we used the Bible's value of pi in NASA's calculations we would never get off the ground.
AS SEEN ABOVE, THE BIBLE IS NOT INFALLIBE, NOT THE WORD OF GOD. IT IS ERRONEOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-04-30
09:21:07
·
27 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnWw9qRWEi_lvj8.PGpJebTsy6IX?qid=20070430130330AACxc6T
link to the question where MANY people told me the Bible was the infallible word of God.
And there was no mistranslating of numbers, so that excuse is out.
2007-04-30
09:22:12 ·
update #1
WHAT SAY YOU? Really, do you still think the Bible is infallible?
2007-04-30
09:22:36 ·
update #2
The only answer that deals with this mathematical innaccuracy asks about "inside" and "outside" circumference.
For that person: THERE IS ONLY ONE CIRCUMFERENCE PER CIRCLE, do the math...
2007-04-30
09:29:36 ·
update #3
Dude a bowl only has one circumference. The outer one is ALWAYS accepted as the circumference, And either way the Bible says 30 cubits round and 10 cubits across, and this is in reference to the same bowl. So even if God isn't that great at calculus, some consistency would either make the "outer" diameter 10 and circ. 30 or the inner 10 and the inner circ. 30 as well.
Either definition you go by, it's still going to be one circle with 1 DIAMETER and 1 CIRCUMFERENCE, no matter if you pick the outer or inner circle.
Nice try, but it doesn't work.
2007-04-30
09:33:32 ·
update #4
Close enough for those God was dealing with in this text... Jim
2007-04-30 10:46:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I read the following text:
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."
The circular basin is measured to be ten cubits from the one brim to the other: This measurement is the distance across the circular basin through the center. This is called the DIAMETER.
"and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
The height of the basin is five cubits. The line of thirty cubits compassing the basin round about is the measurement of taking a rope and running it along the entire edge of the circular basin to measure the distance around a circle. This is called the CIRCUMFERENCE. So the length of the rope used to measure the circumference of the basin is 30 cubits in length from beginning to end.
Now math doesn't lie, and verifies the Bible.
If you measure the distance around a circle and divide it by the distance across the circle through the center, you will always come close to a particular value, depending upon the accuracy of your measurement. This value is approximately 3.14159265358979323846... using the Greek letter Pi to represent this value. The number goes on forever. However, using computers, mathematicians have been able to calculate the value of Pi to thousands of places.
The RADIUS of a circle is the distance from the center of a circle to any point on the circle. If you place two radii end-to-end in a circle, you would have the same length as one diameter. Thus, the diameter of a circle is twice as long as the radius. This relationship is expressed in the following formula: d = 2 · r, where "d" is the diameter and "r" is the radius.
Now according to the online conversion website "Convert Me" (http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/length) beside the Biblical measurement that they use for cubit is an asterisk (which says that the value is approximate, and that the unit does not have an exact value).
Since the Greek value of Pi is approximately 3.14159265358979323846 or 3.14, and the Hebrew Cubit in the Bible is a whole number, instead of using a value of 3.14, I will round out the number to 3 to calculate the circumference of the basin.
According to the website "Convert Me", a cubit is approximately 18 inches.
Translating the figures according to 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."
Diameter = 10 cubits or 180 inches or 15 feet.
Radius = 5 cubits or 90 inches or 7.5 feet.
Height = 5 cubits or 90 inches or 7.5 feet.
Circumference = 30 cubits or 540 inches or 45 feet.
The Radius of the basin is 7.5ft; the Diameter is calculated as follows:
d = 2 · r
d = 2 · (7.5 ft)
d = 15 ft
The Diameter of the basin is 15 feet; the circumference is calculated as follows (rounding out the Greek number of Pi to the whole number of 3 because the Hebrew Cubit is a whole number).
C = Pi · d
C = Pi (3) · (457.2 cm / 15ft)
C= 1371.6 cm or 540 inches or 45 ft or 30 cubits
This proves that the measurements written in 1 Kings 7:23 are correct.
I rounded out the number of Pi from a decimal to a whole number. This is necessary when calculating whole numbers with metric numbers to get as exact a measurement as possible.
When applying a modern Greek metric to a Hebrew unit of measurement without the exact metric, you will not have an exact measurement, but a close measurement.
As for Pi, I performed the same calculation to measure the circumference with the metric of 3.14, the circumference of the basin was 47.1 ft or 31.4 cubits. However you look at it, the Bible's measurements of 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference is correct.
Scholars define a cubit as the length of measurement of a man's forearm from the center fingertip to the elbow - which is approximately (not exactly) 18 inches in length. The basin was real and that is the measurement of length they recorded. If the basin still existed and you used the length of a forearm that measured at about 18 inches from elbow to fingertip, you would come up with 30 lengths.
2007-05-01 12:34:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Q 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Dude. One atheist to another...
You do realize that bowls are measured both inner diameter and outer diameter? And that the thickness of the wall of the bowl and those two numbers can be manipulated to give you something roughly approximating Pi?
----
Correct. One circumference per circle. One diameter as well.
There are two circles in the description of a bowl. The inside measure and the outside measure. This gives two circumferences and two diameters, plus a thickness of the bowl's wall.
For example, if the inner diameter is 1', and the wall thickness is 4", then the outer diameter is 1'8" (wall on each side, plus inner diameter).
----------
So, one measure only, hm?
If you wish to fill it to a specified depth, will you use the same measure as if you wanted to calculate the positioning of a tripod to hold it?
Of course not. You'd use the outer measurements for the tripod, since the tripod will touch the outside walls. You'd use the inner measurements for the fluid, since the fluid will touch the inside walls.
You've lost this one dude.
I'm not a believer, let alone in Christianity, and I can see that one.
2007-04-30 16:29:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
How crazy are you? Did anyone have micrometers 5000 years ago? I don't think so! Plus NASA is having to relearn how to go to build rockets to go to the moon like they did just 30 years ago.
NASA doesn't remember HOW! The people who did are dead or retired.
By the way, 5,000 years ago (ALMOST) the prophet Isaiah wrote in 40: 22, God dwells "above the circle of the earth". This was at a time when science believed the earth was flat and carried on the back of a turtle and later on the shoulders of Atlas. NASA had to wait untill the late 1950's to prove that.
Are you sure you want to talk so big now?
2007-04-30 17:41:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by grnlow 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It doesn't say pi = 3. It says the line used to measure around the vessel was 30 cubits long. A man's forarm from elbow to tip of middle finger is used as a measure of a cubit. Obviously it's an apporximate measurement.
blessings :)
2007-04-30 16:43:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't necessarily believe that the Bible is infallible; it is the word of God written by humans and I think that Adam and Eve...along with everyone else, proved that we just can't get anything 100% right. Not only is it written by humans but it has been translated 100's of times by human beings. I like to focus on the more important things namely Jesus and the fact that he died for our sins. Though I will say that I will believe the Bibles wisdom over NASA any day of the week, month or year.
2007-04-30 16:30:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by like the ocean needs the waves 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Christian Bible is a book of lessons; it teaches morals and good ones, yet, many see "God" and interpret "God" far outside of any biblical context, and rightfully so;
To accept any One explanation of reality, absent your individual investigation, is irresponsible to yourself.
It was once said by a Wise Master; "Give to Ceasar which belongs to Ceasar"...
The lesson was a wise one; so, Give to Christianity that which they seek throught the methods they seek. It may be a longer lesson for them, yet, a lesson none the less. True, Christianity teaches tolerances, yet, many do not follow thier own doctrine while condeming "none believers"; as aggravating it may be for some , they must "turn the other cheek" for they only slap themselves, while comdeming others; as "God" is wiser than most think; as "Gods" Children surly are the very Christians who need a hand most, as a child see's with unexperienced eyes and is blinded by the very doctrine they preach as literal.
The very mathmatics you brag about teach us that the Bumble Bee cannot be aerodynamic enought to actually fly, yet it does; what lesson learned here?
There is much more in ancient precieved text and science text that is still yet mis-understood.
Can one see "infallible" as another or different interpretation?
Can one agree that the "bible" is not intent on spelling out whom "God" is or "what God thinks" or wishes us to think; purhaps it is what it is, ancient text, out of context to serve a purpose that has long since past; to communicate morals outside of the decadence of Rome without Roman interference.
2007-04-30 16:59:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by Adonai 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
prepare for some foot-shuffling and general warped theories on how that was only an 'approximation'. Want approximation? 22/7. There. Still a better approximation than 3. Plenty of other people who figured this out waaaay before the bible was written, too.
2007-04-30 16:26:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
First of all, I DOUBT you have the #'s correct & that is even what that verse it talking about. Second, God doesn't say the Bible is a scientific textboox that NASA should use. There are many other scientific things that ARE 100% accurate. 3rd, even if that WAS a mistake (which it's not) you really proved the WHOLE Bible wrong, didn't you. Why don't you get a VERY advanced Bible scholar/translator next time before you go off ranting.
2007-04-30 16:33:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Keep on thinking that buddy.Good luck with that whole pi thing. I am sure that will buy you a lot of help on judgment day. I can see that now..."No, God. I did not believe in you. But I was all about pi." You'll be on the fast train to torment. Don't be foolish. Turn away from sin and towards God. God bless you.
2007-04-30 16:27:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by TripleTattoo™ 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think that you might mean inerrant. Infallible is a word used to describe the Pope by Roman Catholics. Something that I do not ascribe to either.
Yet I'm a Christian! What is it that you are missing that would guide you to understand the word of God? maybe it's the.1415962? lol
No. It's the Spirit of God. He guides me to understanding. Did you think that they had laser beams to measure with back then? Calipers? Maybe they weren't building rocket ships back then? Ya' think?
2007-04-30 16:31:59
·
answer #11
·
answered by Christian Sinner 7
·
0⤊
0⤋