pi=3.0 (according to the bible)

I Kings 7:23-26 indicates that the biblical value for pi is 3
just 3
now, why aren't creationists in an uproar about the teaching that pi=3.14159265etc?

now, it's not like you can excuse the writer of the book, the value of pi had been determined to a few decimal places by the sumerians (mesopotamian mathematicians had a fetish for the circle)

so... i guess the bible isn't 100% infallible truth...

anyway, my main point is: why the hell are creationists willing to accept that the bible is right about science but not math?

Can you please try to get another hobby rather than try to discredit the Bible day in and day out? I truly don't understand your fascination by something which you keep saying is false and meaningless...

Anyway the passage in question is discussing something "circular." It didn't say it was a perfect circle and clearly wasn't meant to be a scholarly discussion of geometry.

For anyone who cares, here's the full passage in context:

www.biblegateway.com...:1-51;&version=31;


[edit on 6/13/2007 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Can you please try to get another hobby rather than try to discredit the Bible day in and day out? I truly don't understand your fascination by something which you keep saying is false and meaningless...

Whats wrong with that? What makes anything you do better? Because you say so.

As for the thread I think it is a matter of interpretation.
If you wanted to see it, it will be there.

Originally posted by earth2

If you wanted to see it, it will be there.

Truer words were never spoken.

This relates across the boards of this forum.

Thank you,
Lex

Madnessinmysoul,
In your fervor you are giving credibility to the bibles authenticity, I would just quit if I were you....

1 Kings 7:23
The huge cast bronze basin in 1 Kings 7:23 was 10 cubits1 in diameter and its circumference was 30 cubits, which is mathematically inaccurate. Almost any schoolboy knows that the circumference of a circle is not the diameter times 3, but rather, the diameter times a well-known constant called "pi".
The real value of pi is 3.14159265358979, but is commonly approximated by 22/7.
This is assumed, by many, to be an "error" in the Old Testament record, and is often presented as a skeptical rebuttal to the "inerrancy" of the Scripture. How can we say that the Bible is inerrant when it contains such an obvious geometrically incorrect statement?

Sorry madness
The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number.
The q has a value of 100; the v has a value of 6; thus, the normal spelling would yield a numerical value of 106. The addition of the h, with a value of 5, increases the numerical value to 111. This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/106, or 31.41509433962 cubits. Assuming that a cubit was 1.5 ft.,* this 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet.
This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch! (This error is 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate that we were accustomed to using in school!) How did they accomplish this? This accuracy would seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation. How would they know this? How was it encoded into the text?
Implications
Beyond simply these engineering insights of Solomon's day, there are more far-reaching implications of this passage.
1) The Bible is reliable. The "errors" pointed out by skeptics usually derive from misunderstandings or trivial quibbles.
2) The numerical values of the letters are legitimate and apparently can carry significance.


notes
*· There were several "official" cubits in the ancient world, varying from about 18 inches to almost two feet. Some authorities assume 20.24 inches for the ordinary cubit, and 21.888 inches for the sacred one. We have used 18 in. in this discussion.

sources and reference material
www.khouse.org...

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Anyway the passage in question is discussing something "circular." It didn't say it was a perfect circle and clearly wasn't meant to be a scholarly discussion of geometry.

it would have to be off by a significant margin for it to fit with 3.14. hell, any literate person man (unfortunately the misogyny of the bible prevented them from teaching women to read) could have easily discovered the value of pi. it's a 4.5% margin of error on it.

i'm just pointing out the fact that the bible isn't a textbook.
it isn't a book of math
it isn't a book of science
so let's treat it as the type of book it is.

you're clearly missing my point

Amenti, the point you've made was debunked a while ago here on ATS in the "ancient and lost civ" forums. a speaker named "lastdayprophet" used an identical argument

the numbers in the book are the numbers used, not an alphanumeric code. there is no basis for saying that we should switch to a coded form of hebrew for such.

and why are you trying to use indo-european equivalents for a semetic script? you could just find the actual letters and paste them into the box.. it works on ats

The common word for circumference is qav. Here, however, the spelling of the word for circumference, qaveh, adds a heh (h).

In the Hebrew Bible, the scribes did not alter any text which they felt had been copied incorrectly. Rather, they noted in the margin what they thought the written text should be. The written variation is called a kethiv; and the marginal annotation is called the qere.

To the ancient scribes, this was also regarded as a remez, a hint of something deeper. This appears to be the clue to treat the word as a mathematical formula.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and why are you trying to use indo-european equivalents for a semetic script? you could just find the actual letters and paste them into the box.. it works on ats

Amenti is copy-pasting the argument from the website, not writing it himself.

the definition of a "cubit" is rather undefined. A cubit is the measurement of length from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Assuming that Hiram used a defined length to be a cubit, you may be correct. But you are assuming too much. Nowhere in that passage does it say that those are the exact dimensions. A cubit can range anywhere from 18-22 inches.

Assuming they were using a ten cubit length of rope or meeauring line, the circumference can only be accurately measured to one significant digit. Measuring 1.4 cubits with a ten foot length of measurement would be a bad mathematical assumption.

As much as I loathe the bible, I cannot fully agree that this disproves its validity. It is my belief that there is much symbolism and significance in the allegory and lessons of the text itself. I see far better arguments than this for proving that the bible is incorrect.

I think this passage has more to do with the significance of whole numbers, or dialectics. Particularly the triad, or the number three. The truth is we can use circular logic to prove to ourselves that something is incorrect. But then we would be beating around the bush, about your disdain for the church. But people might argue in circles around you, using the bible in some roundabout way.

You may consider looking at the significance of PI and the golden ratio within the text. And yes, the hebrew alphabet is alpahnumerical. That is very important to remember.

Doesn’t anyone think this is nothing if not an astounding coincidence that the word “circumference” has the alphanumerical value of the circumference of this thing that shows pi 15 times better than the 22/7 or the 3.14? can we agree on that?

This cubit figure is not just pulled out of thin air to make this work and even if it was it would still be a mathematical miracle that it would be the best approximation for the jewish cubit

A cubit was the length of a man's forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimetres (18 inches).


www.answers.com...
www.answersingenesis.org...
www.abu.nb.ca...

Originally posted by Amenti

This cubit figure is not just pulled out of thin air to make this work

Ok, explain this :

A cubit was the length of a man's forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips.

And, that measures the SAME on every person, eh ?

The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimetres (18 inches).

"About" huh ? That must be a new scientific measuring term I've not
heard of, yet.

People have been throwing these ideas around for years.
They never work.

Regards,
Lex

You people miss the point. Creationists fight to get creation taught as real and fact in science classes because the Bible Says So. So why aren't they fighting to get Pi=3.0 taught as real and fact in amth classes? More Hypocrisy no?

Why can you not wrap your little mind around the fact that people believe in something larger? Too many generalize that creationists are ignorant hicks who are unwilling to think for themselves? Did you know that Einstein was a devout believer in the Jewish Testament? Did you know that Darwin was in fact a Christian? Some people are able to think outside of the box. Not everyone follows just one belief or another. There are many who choose to follow a path in between.

Originally posted by Ironside
Did you know that Einstein was a devout believer in the Jewish Testament?

Einstein did not believe in a personal god.

Did you know that Darwin was in fact a Christian?

Yes he was. Darwin believed in the story of Creation, and boarded the HMS Beagle at the request of a fundamentalist captain that hoped to find geological evidence to support the bible. The Beagle brought Darwin to South America, South Africa, Australia, and islands in the Pacific and Atlantic, and of course, the Galapagos Islands. And what did he find?

Evidence for the theory of evolution, lots of it. How ironic isn't it? That a fundamentalist would bring a naturalist around the world hoping for proof of Creation, and he would find exactly the opposite

[edit on 15-6-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by DarkSide
Evidence for the theory of evolution, lots of it. How ironic isn't it? That a fundamentalist would bring a naturalist around the world hoping for proof of Creation, and he would find exactly the opposite

[edit on 15-6-2007 by DarkSide]

I am not commenting on evolution, for I believe in this. I am just stating that people with religon also may believe in science.

````````````````````
Trimmed quote

[edit on 15/6/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by IronsideI am not commenting on evolution, for I believe in this. I am just stating that people with religon also may believe in science.

Except that science is not a belief, you either accept it or not.

Saying "I believe in Evolution" puts science on the same level as religion, which it is not.

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by IronsideI am not commenting on evolution, for I believe in this. I am just stating that people with religon also may believe in science.

Except that science is not a belief, you either accept it or not.

Saying "I believe in Evolution" puts science on the same level as religion, which it is not.

Evolution is merely still a theory, not a law. Until it is 100% proven, it is something you believe.

This whole discussion is so ridiculous and useless IMHO.

On one side we have the Bible saying π = 3.0000... which means it's completely wrong.

On the other side, we have the Bible through codes giving π to an accuracy unheard of probably before the computer era.

Please.

I don't think either of these are correct, I believe the Bible was inspired by God but written by man.

But no matter what you personally believe, it's obvious that this passage is simply a rough description of a structure! I can't believe any side would use it as some kind of proof that it's either divinely written, inspired or simply rubbish.

Originally posted by IronsideEvolution is merely still a theory, not a law. Until it is 100% proven, it is something you believe.

Gravity is also a theory, (...)

```````````````````
Removed inflammatory remark

Please read Courtesy is mandatory

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 15/6/07 by masqua]