Is modern PI against God's word?

Question

According to Kings 7:23, the circumference of a circle is diameter x 3 ("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").

But according to modern mathematics, the circumference of a circle is the diameter x PI which is (when rounded to 5 decimal places) 3.14159.

So does this mean that modern mathematics goes against the word of God? Or is it more a case that it was simplified to be easier to understand back then?

I wonder how much else was simplified.

Sorry if the lack of 1 before Kings threw anyone. I'm not completely "up" on all the verses and I had to look up it up. I must have missed the 1 when I C+Ped it.

Answer 1

The 10 cubits is the outside diameter, (total with) the 30 cubits were the inside (Total volume) If you add the thickness of it, it makes sense.

Desiree, The lower ribs are the only bone the grows back if they are removed.

Answer 2

(There is no 2 Kings 7:23 so I presume you mean 1 Kings 7:23.)

How accurately do you reckon they could measure in those days? We know a cubit is about half a metre in modern measuring units; but would it necessarily have been *exactly* 50cm. each time? Was the diameter *exactly* ten perfect, fifty-centimetre cubits, and was the circumference *exactly* thirty of the same unit? There is no way of knowing.

If you want an explanation that could be read as literally true, you could say that the *outside diameter* of the container was 10 cubits (or 5m., giving the outside circumference as 31.415927 cubits or 15.7079635m.) and the *inside circumference* was 30 cubits or 15m.; making the inside diameter 9.5492964 cubits or 4.7746482m. and therefore the thickness of the walls was 0.2253518 cubits, or 11.26759cm. (Which certainly accords with :26.) If the vessel was a hemisphere (possible, since the height is given as 5 cubits), then it would have held 227.97265 cubic cubits or -- still assuming that 1 cubit = 0.5m. -- 28 496.581 litres. If it was a cylinder, then it would have held 358.09861 cubic cubits or 44 762.327 litres.

Although, I'd still be tempted to put it down to "rounding error" .....

Answer 3

Henry i've got self assurance in God because of fact God teachings by no ability replace and function by no ability been dis shown. 4 occasion 4 all all of us know on the subject of the universe no person has an sufficient rationalization how water got here onto earth. If it got here from comets the earth could be extensive! yet its no longer. No agreed upon rationalization exist 4 this very obvious substance. whilst i desire to college they taught ppl that existence had all started in a tide pool. Now thats no longer believed to be genuine. i know sci variations. however the certainty of historical past by no ability variations. U in certainty R asking why dont we live in a suitable worldwide if God can create perfection. right here is my ans to U: if U had a doll that each and every time U pulled a string it suggested I luv U how long could that amuse U? If that comparable doll suggested I luv U particularly circumstances, different situations it suggested I hate U or undertaking me, or purely confirmed U it had loose will so as that U knew whilst it suggested I luv U it replaced into coming from the doll, and not from a spell U positioned on it to easily say a million and in basic terms a million concern. So if U have been a author which one worldwide could U opt for to create, a suitable plastic worldwide or a million of annoying circumstances and uncertainty?

Answer 4

i think the key is in the exact length of a cubit that i understand to be "about the space between the wrist and elbow of an adult male" this could vary so would it not be close enough when decimals arent used or as we say in the construction field "its close enough for government work"

Answer 5

Do you know what a cubit is? How would you define .14159 of a cubit? I don't think it was a mater of simplification, but rather a mater of a lack of accurate measure.

Answer 6

It was an approximation, just like a year was considered to be 360 days instead of the 365.2449 we have calculated it to be now.

Also their instruments weren't as precise as ours are today, so there was a lot more 'wiggle room' in their calculations.

Answer 7

god didn't find out about decimal places until after he wrote that bit.

[edit]

is dinger really suggesting that increasing the radius of a circle decreases its circumference?

Answer 8

I bet heaps. Also, doesn't it say in genesis something about the number of Adams ribs that doesn't match the human anatomy?