Demon's Guards?

Originally posted by radardog


Next, to make things crystal clear, we can all pretty much assume that 1 Kings 7:23 is not meant in metaphor or allegory, and it states,

"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."

Thus, we know we are talking about a circle, that passage gives us two key references.

It seems to me, that the writer gave everything needed to calculate the shape of the object. It gives the major axis and the perimeter.

How exactly have we come to the conclusion that we are talking about a circle?

[edit on 10-4-2005 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by Balaams donkey
Thank you Dog,

Your saying the Bible is in error because of this verse?

No, I am saying the bible is incorrect at least once. Big difference.

That is could not have been God speaking, because the mathematics are all wrong, thus is the Bible is a myth?

That is not my argument.

Have you ever given rough measurement?

Yes, but I am quick to add that it is a rough measurement. I don't want to add words to the bible. It's a sin.

Was the hand breadth on the inside of 30 cubits or on the outside of 10 cubits, who knows.

It wouldn't matter either way; with the numbers given, PI would just be off even more.

Does the bible ever give tenths of cubits for measurements?

It wouldn't matter. I just need to show the bible incorrect once for my point.

Kind of like when you get that bookshelf at the store and all the boys show up to help, and no one reads the instructions? There's bound to be a bit of confusion?

Confusion from an instruction manual inspired by God. Say it isn't so. Seriously, though -- precision has been found elsewhere before this was written -- it isn't that hard to expect God to inspire things correctly.

The first measurement is for the brim, 10 cubits brim to brim, the second measurement for the tank it self, 30 cubits round.
Remember it said the brim is like lip of a cup, juts outward? Why would God give two measurement for the same thing?...

So we have nice instructions for a pretty flared tank, rather than an ugly straight walled one. the next issue.

__10____ C>30
\-----------/
|______| C=30

Let's discuss this more indepth.
Let's calculate that C of the brim must be using the correct value of PI.

C = PI * D = > C = PI * 10 => C is around 31.41

We know C of the barrel is 30, so let's do some math.

30 = PI * D => 30/PI = D => D is around 9.55

Now let's figure out the angle of the flare.
D of the flare is greater than the D of the bottom by .45, meaning the flar extends .225 cubits from the barrel.

.225
__
|5/
| /
|/

We know the entire height was 5 cubits, so at most we know the height of this rectangle is 5. Reviewing some trig, we have
arccotangent(adj/opp) = Theta

Thus, arccotan(5/.225) is about 2.58 degrees -- an angle that isn't even noticable. Using the idea that the angle of the flare starts as soon as possible is perfeclt reasonable, when we see a discription in 1 Kings 7:25 where the cup looks like a lilly blossom.

(please look at the blossom, and not the stem)

See: www.artflower.pe.kr...

We can see above that the average Lilly has a bit more than a 2.58 degree angle in its cone-like shape.

Also note that this cup is supposed to contain 2,000 baths. (1 King 7:25)

At its largest (supposing it is a cylinder as large as its flare-brim), we have a cylinder where radius=5, height=5, and diameter=10, and the equation for its volume would be:

V = PI * r^2 * height,

So, V = 3.14 * 25 * 5 => V is about 392.5 cubits cubed.

We know that 1 cubit is about 18 inches, thus volume is around 7,065 cubic inches.

However, 1 bath = 1386.00000288288 cubic inches (www.convert-me.com...), thereby having the cup at least 2,772,000 cubic inches. Noting that 7065 < 2,772,000 we can see that the bible's description of the cup must me incorrect -- once again.


Would it be that hard to admit that the bible can be incorrect at least once?

(edit: Graphical Problems)
[edit on 10-4-2005 by radardog]

[edit on 10-4-2005 by radardog]

[edit on 10-4-2005 by radardog]

[edit on 11-4-2005 by radardog]

Dog

Would it be that hard to admit that the bible can be incorrect at least once?

No. Not at all, if it was. But if we think it is incorrect, we must first examine, why and who thinks it is incorrect, we should assume it is us not the bible, until the work is exhausted. I think you have confused the 10 cubit brim with the 30 cubit tank. Too make the point even greater, the top you could measure easier with flat measurement, or rod on the diameter, and the sides you could not so God wisely says use a cord and gives the circumference of 30 cubits. Plus, can you name anywhere in the Bible where God give two measurements for the same thing? Why do think he is doing so here, rather than two measurements for different parts of the tank?
I think it would be harder for you to admit, that the two measurements are for different parts of the tank.

Confusion from an instruction manual inspired by God. Say it isn't so.

Confusion is of man, not God.


A cubit is 18 inches or 25 inches depending on who you ask, it is also dependant on the builder, we would need to know his arms length.

You have no idea where the flare started on the vessel, so your angle idea is shot. Now 30-31.5=1.5/2=.75 cubits or about 12 inches on the edge, which is a nice size for a lip or brim. Now a 12 inch brim is quite noticeable. So the PI complaint is solved, it is not a problem at all. You are straining at a Nat.

_ _
l l
l____________l flared like this. Not from bottom to top.

Nice drawings and math by the way, dog. That part was cool.

1 Kings 7:26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

It does not say the brim was like a lilies, but like a cup with flowers of lilies. Flowers cast in to the bronze.
1 Kings 7:36 For on the plates of the ledges thereof, and on the borders thereof, he graved cherubims, lions, and palm trees, according to the proportion of every one, and additions round about.

Notice the use of the work "like", in like a cup, declaring a rough measurement. Nor does it say what kind of lilies, water lilies or otherwise.

1 Kings 7:24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.

Please note, it says "under the brim", meaning that the brim stops, rather than tapers to the bottom.

If you say a cubit is an exact measurement then *BUZZ*, oh sorry, wrong answer.

It was a measurement from the wrist to the fingertip. How long is a cubit? How long is YOUR arm?

For more on cubits, feel free to visit this informative, yet entertaining website:

www.worldwideflood.com...

I think it would be harder for you to admit, that the two measurements are for different parts of the tank.

How so? I took that assumption and went off the math to calculate a possible angle for the flare of the brim.

A cubit is 18 inches or 25 inches depending on who you ask, it is also dependant on the builder, we would need to know his arms length.

Either way, the baths measurements is off -- just more so. This object could NOT, in any way shape or form contain 2,000 baths. I have proved this.

You are misreading the KJV's language of the description of the cup. It is a bit clearer if you look at the NIV's: "It was a handbreadth [q] in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths. "

The RIM was like a lily blossom, thus the angle would have started at the base. And this makes sense. Why? Because there were statues that had their hind quaters at the base, and res of the body stuck out. A side view might have looked like this:

______
|......../
|***/
|....../
|...../ /\
|..../ |||||+\ Rawr, I'm a bulll
|.../ ||||||||---
|../|||||||||
|./||||||||||

"The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center"

If the cup looks like you say, then the sea could only rest besides them, not supported by them, or rather something like this:



_............_ /\
|..........| |||+\
|..........|||||| rawr, I'm a bull
|..........||||||

This is NOT the biblical account.

Moreover, other literalists have come to take the rim the same as I. e.g. AIG posts this rendition of the picture: www.answersingenesis.org...

However, it does not take into account the cup being on top of the statues, and their drawing looks nothing like any time of lily.

So the PI complaint is solved, it is not a problem at all. You are straining at a Nat.

Not so, you are adding words in the bible. For all we know that was a measurement of the brim's C. And even assuming the correct measure of PI, then you have other problems, which I have pointed out.

1. The bible gives an angle of the flare that is not noticable.
2. Its maximum volume is less than the bible tells us.

Notice the use of the work "like", in like a cup, declaring a rough measurement. Nor does it say what kind of lilies, water lilies or otherwise.

Ever seen a water lily? That would show the angle to be even at a worse value! Ever notice how both versions use imagery of a cup. Ironically, ancient cups typically look like my description. Look at this example:




An ancient golden cup from the "near east."

Please note, it says "under the brim", meaning that the brim stops, rather than tapers to the bottom.

Not necessarily. "Under the brim" is anywhere above the base, including the base; all of those points fall under the brim.

Again, no matter what shape you want the over all thing to be, this does not address the problem of its volum. Again, we can assume this thing is a cylinder as large as its measurements for its brim, and its volume is lacking.

Then, in 2 Chronicles 4, the cup supposedly holds 3,000 baths! Which is it, bible?

Originally posted by saint4God
If you say a cubit is an exact measurement then *BUZZ*, oh sorry, wrong answer.

It was a measurement from the wrist to the fingertip. How long is a cubit? How long is YOUR arm?

For more on cubits, feel free to visit this informative, yet entertaining website:

www.worldwideflood.com...

Do the math. You can make the cubit as long as you like; it just makes the volume contradiction even worse. This is a moot point.

Do the math. You can make the cubit as long as you like; it just makes the volume contradiction even worse. This is a moot point.

It doesn't make it worse if you make a cubit longer because we're talking about a ration based on a proximity measurement. If the denominator is slightly less because of an approximate measurement, you come out with a number 'pretty darned close' to pi.

Here's your arguement:

Thus, we know we are talking about a circle, that passage gives us two key references.

1. The diameter (10 cubits).
2. The circumference (30 cubits).

Let's plug these values into our equation and solve for PI.

30 = PI * 10 => 30/10 = PI => 3 = PI.

Remembering the origin of Pi, you're asking the Bible to be the discovery of pi which it is not:

Around 200 BC somebody named Archimedes of Syracuse found out that pi is somewhere near the number 3.14 [he did it in fractions they had not invented decimals at that time]. The Egyptians used Pi = 3.

If the Egyptians (you know, the guys who built the pyramids) used it as 3, then why would you expect the Hebrews to do it differently if it worked? Does that mean Egyptians could not construct 'round things'?

What does this have to do with demons? Vash testifies they're real, who are you to say otherwise? Does it help Vash to say 'they're only in your head'? I'd venture not, they'll still be there in the morning even if you convince yourself they're not real. If the Bible is wrong, let Vash try it. If it turns out to not be true, then you may be the first to say "I told you so".


[edit on 11-4-2005 by saint4God]

It doesn't make it worse if you make a cubit longer because we're talking about a ration based on a proximity measurement. If the denominator is slightly less because of an approximate measurement, you come out with a number 'pretty darned close' to pi.

Not necessarily; it is the same guy describing the measurements of both aspects (i.e. same arm length each time). That means the error rate for both numbers are the same, leaving the ratio still equivalent to 3 (and no, that isn't pretty darn close to PI).

And, you are factually incorrect,

"Pi is a very old number. We know that the Egyptians and the Babylonians knew about the existence of the constant ratio pi, although they didn't know its value nearly as well as we do today. They had figured out that it was a little bigger than 3; the Babylonians had an approximation of 3 1/8 (3.125), and the Egyptians had a somewhat worse approximation of 4*(8/9)^2 (about 3.160484), which is slightly less accurate and much harder to work with. For more, see A History of Pi by Petr Beckman (Dorset Press)."

mathforum.org...

Does it help Vash to say 'they're only in your head'? I'd venture not, they'll still be there in the morning even if you convince yourself they're not real. If the Bible is wrong, let Vash try it. If it turns out to not be true, then you may be the first to say "I told you so".

Whoah, I never said demons do not exist. Go back and read. Previously I suggested that demons are agents of God.

Originally posted by radardog
And, you are factually incorrect,

Yeah, after visiting more than reading some 10 sites, I sure you're right about the Egyptians being more on target. If the Egyptians were that far off, I don't think they would've been able to properly compensate in designs such as the pyramids.

Originally posted by radardog
"Pi is a very old number. We know that the Egyptians and the Babylonians knew about the existence of the constant ratio pi, although they didn't know its value nearly as well as we do today. They had figured out that it was a little bigger than 3; the Babylonians had an approximation of 3 1/8 (3.125), and the Egyptians had a somewhat worse approximation of 4*(8/9)^2 (about 3.160484), which is slightly less accurate and much harder to work with. For more, see A History of Pi by Petr Beckman (Dorset Press)."

mathforum.org...

Pretty good. I'm glad yo made me do more research on it because I was about .14 off in my research . Anyhow, have you considered the following?

Excerpt:

"1 Kings 7:23 reads: He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a circumference of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Thirty divided by ten gives a value of 3. However, it is interesting to note that the word circumference happens to be spelled with an extra letter. Since in Hebrew all letters are also numbers, if we take the ratio of the value for the word as it is written (111) to the normal spelled word (106) we get the number 1.047169811... If you multiply this number by 3 you get 3.141509434... An amazingly close approximation to pi!"

I should cite my sources from now on when talking pi: www.arcytech.org...

Originally posted by radardog
Whoah, I never said demons do not exist. Go back and read. Previously I suggested that demons are agents of God.

I thought you said you were atheist? If you do not believe God exists, how can demons be agents of God?

Originally posted by radardog
Ah, the old, "oh yeah?! Well if your argument is right, then why do you honor Peter?!" Not a good argument against an atheist.

Or were you being hypothetical?



[edit on 11-4-2005 by saint4God]

Thirty divided by ten gives a value of 3. However, it is interesting to note that the word circumference happens to be spelled with an extra letter. Since in Hebrew all letters are also numbers, if we take the ratio of the value for the word as it is written (111) to the normal spelled word (106) we get the number 1.047169811... If you multiply this number by 3 you get 3.141509434... An amazingly close approximation to pi!"

Hah. That's interesting. I'm not sure what it has to do with the molten sea, though.


I am an atheist, however I was arguing from within christian theology. Supposing God exists, and the bible is true for arguments sake is something I enjoy doing. I am willing to entertain the truth of christianity, and discuss it accordingly; I'm not as closed minded as some of my peers.

Originally posted by radardog
Hah. That's interesting. I'm not sure what it has to do with the molten sea, though.

I dunno, first I'd heard of it *shrugs*.

Originally posted by radardog
I am an atheist, however I was arguing from within christian theology. Supposing God exists, and the bible is true for arguments sake is something I enjoy doing. I am willing to entertain the truth of christianity, and discuss it accordingly; I'm not as closed minded as some of my peers.

I can see that, it is much appreciated. The Bible makes pretty clear though what is put there for good purposes and what is not. For those questioning that placement, an angel does advise on how to test the spirit. That means people will be mislead if they blindly follow something that is questionable.

[edit on 11-4-2005 by saint4God]

well i am sorry that i have not been posting been away from the net working but i am back for a min or to just looked over the posts about cubics and etc etc i was reading some were that the bible was proven wrong i am still looking on the net to try to find the net page again but once i find it i will have to post it...

Hey Dog,

Well, we are done, with any further discussion until we can agree on,

Are the 10 cubits and 30 cubit two measurements for the same thing, or are the two measurements for two different areas? Logic demands, that two measurements for two things until you can without doubt prove they are for the same thing, and since the tank could be built tapered or "quick lipped" I do not think you can prove this. Nor does the 30 cubits measurement make any sense on a tapered vessel, as when the builders were putting it together, they would have gone crazy trying to get both measurements to match. Because the rule of PI exists with or without our knowledge of it. Since this would be the case, and they did build the vessel one way or the other, and if it was only by a man’s mind, then way would they have put in two contrary measurements? This is your task to prove it was the same thing being measured twice. If you can do this it makes your case better. But, why would God say the circumference is 30 cubits and also say it is 10 cubit, you have failed to address this point in my earlier post.
Granted you have made one to the best cases yet, but we would not want to believe something in error, and if you insist beyond reason the two measurement must be the same, then you must call your self in to question on your motive? My goal is truth, not to convert you.

The bulls, on a straight wall tank are under the tank supporting it.

__ *********__
I I
I_________I
*** ***

This is not as good as your fine works, so please bear with me on this, the little stars on the bottom are the bulls. Moooo, bulls go Moooo, not raaaa, Bears go raaaa, and sun worshipers too. Kidding, just a joke.

So is it impossible to build the tank like “shown” above?

1 Kings 7:25 It stood UPON twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set ABOVE UPON them, and all their hinder parts were inward.

See, it says UPON, not between the oxen, and again “the sea set above upon them” So the oxen are under the tank, further strengthening the case for a straight walled tank, with a lip.

But, maybe you did not see that part clearly before now, it is a big Bible.
Now to cubits and baths, just as a cubit is not fixed, I do not think a bath is fixed either, there are some general ideas, but not fixed.

after all the material that rests in the Bible, the 'proof' that it's not true comes from an appoximate measurment of an object. Funny, I thought it be something like "God gives bad advice" or something. Sorry all, my study was in Genetics so I'll watch what others have to say on this one.

Is there a Christian Mason in the house would like to talk about early Civil Engineering and Structual Design? I can see where both arguments are coming from, but think this is a stretch argument to say God doesn't know math. More likely, people at the time didn't study it all their lives and God worked with them the best He could.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by ShadowedRedemption
I hope I don't make any one mad with this, but I have to say it. Not all demons are nessarily 'evil'. From religion to religion, and myth to myth, good and evil take on different forms. Perhaps these demons are your guardians. Anything can be possible when dealing with the unknown. Don't be afraid of them, try conversing with them.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by ShadowedRedemption]

Sh*t I just typed all this out and it disappeared.

Anyway,

I was thinking that too. Everything beautiful is not always good and vice versa.

Short version: Start using empathy to try and discern who these being are. How do you feel when they are present?? What type of emotions are stirred within you?? Have they gotten testy with you and if so, what did you do before this?? Push aside that theyve been with you all your life. Those human feeling have been nurtured so are not to be relied on.

Theres a plan for you in anycase, if they are evil or good. Free will is the key. This facade, of protecting you will have you leaning towards them int he end. I feel as though you may be one of the gifted, you may be able to see all types of spritual being which they would love to use you for. If they wanted to ruin you, it would be through other humans, its most effective unfortunately. But no, you may have a higher calling.

You need clear insight, from here on you cannot rely on visits because forms can be changed. Stay within yourself. Ill send you a sparkly to help. Just a little glimmer.

Dont ask them for crap either. Thats almost as bad as following them. they will own you. Stay away from Magicks too!!! Harness natural insight and feeling,..... which is magickal in its self.

Donkey,

It's fine if you want to end the conversation. I took my proof in regards to the volume problem to JP Holding (a relatively well known apologists), and in a sly manner, I am somewhat proud of myself: He has no answer to the volume problem. Donkey, with respect to volume, you are looking at an error of a multiple of 20 using the KJV, and 10 using the Hewbrew version.

Ironically, that error rate is using the largest known value of cubits to be used: 25 inches! Just to put it into more known terms, the Hewbrew version of the bible says this object contains about 6,000 gallons, when it could only possibly hold around 600 gallons. This is a HUGE difference, not a minor measurement error.

Saint,

I'm not saying this disproves the entire bible. That wouldn't be a very good argument. It however can place a seed of doubt with respect to inerrantists (those who believe the bible can never be incorrect, anywhere in the texts) and also in the idea the entire bible was inspired by God.
(i.e. if these measurements were inspirations of God, then why was there an error rate of a multiple of 10?).

Originally posted by radardog
Saint,

I'm not saying this disproves the entire bible. That wouldn't be a very good argument.

Oh good, we agree here.

Originally posted by radardog
It however can place a seed of doubt with respect to inerrantists (those who believe the bible can never be incorrect, anywhere in the texts) and also in the idea the entire bible was inspired by God.
(i.e. if these measurements were inspirations of God, then why was there an error rate of a multiple of 10?).

I see where some of the math is coming from, but let's look back at what 1 Kings 7:23 & 7:24 says:

23 -
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits hight. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."

That's just the rim. Nothing more than the rim. Yay, we've figured out the rim, not how many baths the thing holds so let's press on...

24 -
"Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea."

My question is, what's the volume of a gourd? There are 10 of them to a cubit so x 10. These were the containers that held the 2,000 baths, wasn't it?

(i.e. if these measurements were inspirations of God, then why was there an error rate of a multiple of 10?).

This may account for your concern.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by saint4God]

Saint, I think you are misreading the passage: From rim to rim is 5 cubits, however, the height of the entire sea is 5 cubits.

The NIV says:
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits


from rim to rim and five cubits high."

Gramatically, the five cubits high belong to the sea of cast metal.


24 -
"Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea."

The gourds mentioned can't be very large. There were 10 to a cubit, and there were 30 cubits round-about. Therefore, there were 300 little gourds encircling this thing.

Assuming each gourd was the same size, the diameter of each gourd could only be .1 cubits. Assuming the gourds had a maximum height (just a little less height than the sea), we have a gourd that has .1 cubit diameter, and 4.99 cubit height.

Volume = PI * radius ^2 * height
Volume = 3.14 *.05 * 4.99 = 0.78343 cubits cubed. There were 300 of them, so there was a maximum volume of 235.029 cubits cubed.
Let's use the maximum value of cubit (25 inches), and we have 5,875.725
cubic inches, which translates into, which is still just shy of the few million needed (okay, a lot shy, but you get the idea).

And this isn't even considering that the gourds can't be anywhere as tall as the sea; they would be in the way of the bull statues, and it ignores thickness.

um math o god not math please dont turotuer me

Solomon’s Bath :

A CUBIT

Dictionary.com
cu•bit Pronunciation (kybt)
n.
An ancient unit of linear measure, originally equal to the length of the forearm from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow, or about 17 to 22 inches (43 to 56 centimeters).

A BATH

Ezekiel 45:11-12 The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure, that the bath may contain the tenth part of an homer, and the ephah the tenth part of an homer: the measure thereof shall be after the homer. And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs: twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh.

Websters:
bath
Function: noun
Etymology: Hebrew
: an ancient Hebrew liquid measure corresponding to the ephah of dry measure

Nave’s Topical Bible:
A Hebrew measure for liquids containing about eight gallons, three quarts

Bible resource Center
bath (= 1/10 homer or 6 hins; also = 1 ephah, see dry measure)22 liters 5.8 US gallons
What is a Ephah

A HOMER

Bible resource center:
homer (= 10 baths) 58 US gallons

Webster:
ho•mer
Pronunciation: 'hO-m&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Hebrew hOmer
: an ancient Hebrew unit of capacity equal to about 10 1/2 or later 11 1/2 bushels or 100 gallons (378 liters)

HISTORY OF THE BATH:

One source says the Bath is a feminine word, because the girls would fetch the water, and the jars that they used took on this name, bath. It was the amount of water a girl would carry.

Water weighs 7.8 lbs per gallon. The range of a bath is 5.8 to 10 gallons.
5.8gal x 7.8lbs= 45.24 lbs, plus the jar
10gal x 7.8 lbs= 78 lbs, plus the jar
Remember the jar is clay so it must weigh at least 10lbs.
When I was in the U.S. Marines we carried 70lbs packs and it would dang near kill you.
The Army ruck sac endurance test were with a 45lbs pack.
The Army new MOLLE pack, is rated at a maximum weight for women at 50lbs.
The maximum weight women can carry is on their heads, that is 70% of their body weight, not counting over weight women.
So a 115 girl could carry 80lbs, that is jar and water.
So it is quite reasonable to assume a bath is less than 10gallons, as sizes are dependant on common usage.
In most countries women carry jars of about 50 lbs total.
if the jar were only 5lbs then the water would be 45lbs, giving you 5.8 gallons of water, which is a little bit bigger than our currant standard size of a five gallon bucket.

WHEN WERE MEASUREMENTS STANDARDIZED
Ezekiel 45:11 long after Solomon.

10 CUBITS OR 30 CUBITS:

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.

10 cubits for the brim
5 cubits or the height
AND 30 cubits round.
Now look at that, three names and three numbers, to solve three equations you need three knowns. Notice, how it says the brim was round all about, meaning the brim could have been squared, or fanned or fluted, or who knows what.

Who would give two different numbers for the same measurement? If this were so, then why not two measurements for the height?

Are the 10 cubits and 30 cubit two measurements for the same thing, or are the two measurements for two different areas? Logic demands, that two measurements for two things until you can without doubt prove they are for the same thing, and since the tank could be built tapered or "quick lipped" I do not think you can prove this. Nor does the 30 cubits measurement make any sense on a tapered vessel, as when the builders were putting it together, they would have gone crazy trying to get both measurements to match. Because the rule of PI exists with or without our knowledge of it. Since this would be the case, and they did build the vessel one way or the other, and if it was only by a man’s mind, then way would they have put in two contrary measurements? This is your task to prove it was the same thing being measured twice. If you can do this it makes your case better. But, why would God say the circumference is 30 cubits and also say it is 10 cubit, you have failed to address this point in my earlier post. Why?

THE MATH

Let a cubit be 18 inches to 25 inches

Tank size:
10 cubits, or 180 and 250 inches
And
5 cubits, or 90 and 125 inches

Calculations:
Vol = length x [(r2acos((r-d)/r) – ((r-d) x sqrt (2rd)-d2)]
R= radius of container
D = depth of container

180 and 90 gives us 9914 US gallons
250 and 125 gives us 26562 US gallons

9914gal/5.8gal/bath =1709 baths
9914gal/10 gal/bath = 991 baths
26562gal/5.8gal/bath = 4579 baths
26562gal/10gal/bath= 2656 baths

Average of all guesses 2483 baths.

2483 baths! What is your problem Dog? Maybe you should do some math before opening your mouth.

Now who’s Cubit was it and who’s bath was it? Who was God talking too? It all depends on Solomon doesn’t it? God was telling all of this to Solomon, not you or I. Right? So it is a fine thing for you to come along thousands of years after and declare, the Bible is wrong, because you do not understand it.