Thoughts About Solomon's Sea

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

My thoughts about the pi debate have been in a state of flux.  If anybody
cares, here are the most recent:

Skeptics allege that the writer of 1 Kings couldn't possibly have been
inspired because he evidently believed that the value of pi was 3, not the
more nearly correct value of 3.14.  The writer in 1 Kings says that
circumference of Solomon's man-made circular pond was 30 cubits [1] and he
gives the diameter as 10 cubits.  However, in order for the circumference of
the pond to be 30 cubits, the diameter would have to be 9.549 cubits,
approximately.  Rounded to the nearest half, this is 9.5.  Since the concept
of "half" was well known in those days (the word "half"appears 136 times in
the Bible), it is difficult to understand why the Kings author didn't give a
more accurate value of the diameter, "ten and a half cubits". Here is what he
actually said:

 "He [Solomon] 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.  (1 Kings 7:23)


On the other hand, if the Kings author meant that the diameter was exactly ten
cubits, then he should at least have given us the more accurate circumference,
rounded to the nearest half:  31 and a half (31.5 versus the actual 31.4).
 But, we could carry this to extremes.  Do we have the right to insist that he
should have said the circumference was 31 and half, less half of a half of a
half (i.e., less .125, giving 31.5 - 0.125 = 31.375)?  

As Joseph Crea points out, in
Peter Beckmann's History of Pi, [he]   states that as late as the 5th century
CE, the Hebrews believed that pi =   3 and offers as evidence a citation from
the Talmud which goes as follows:   "...that which in circumference is three
hands broad is one hand   broad".


We thus have good evidence to believe that not only the Hebrews of that time
believed that pi was 3, but also that the Kings author likewise did.  But,
just because we believe so, doesn't mean that we've built a strong case.  We
need to ask what kind of statement from Kings would have been acceptable
before we rush to brand a verse as errant. Would we insist on "31 and a half,
less half of a half of half", or something better than this?  Why won't we
accept 31, or just 30, assuming that the author was only giving approximate
dimensions?  Should we expect an omniscient god should ask his servant to
spend the time and scroll space necessary to give us the precise dimensions of
Solomon's Sea, or are approximate values alright, if those dimensions aren't
crucial to his message?  Did the Lord give us the exact ages, down to the day,
of Moses, for example?  If not, why not?
[1] A cubit is about 1.5 feet. 

• Previous message: errancy galore (redux)
• Next message: Thoughts About Solomon's Sea
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]