1. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    11 Feb '10 20:52
    Apologies if this has been aired before but Kings 7:23-26 seems to say that pi = 3
    which according to man at the time was about right. But shouldnt god be a bit more accurate?
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Feb '10 20:585 edits
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Apologies if this has been aired before but Kings 7:23-26 seems to say that pi = 3
    which according to man at the time was about right. But shouldnt god be a bit more accurate?
    why cant his creation be more accurate and stress whether its 1st Kings or 2nd Kings for there are two you know. Anyhow, what's your gripes this time Wolfers? Solomon didn't use two decimal places? Pedantry and great learning are driving you mad my friend! Dig this my man!

    The circumference of 30 cubits is evidently a round figure, for more precisely it would be 31.4 cubits. In this regard, Christopher Wordsworth quotes a certain Rennie as making this interesting observation: “Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi-diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or ‘brim,’ would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more.” (Notes on the King James Version, London, 1887) Thus, it appears that the ratio of three to one (that is, the circumference being three times the diameter) was a customary way of stating matters, intended to be understood as only approximate.

    source : Jehovahs Witnesses.
  3. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    11 Feb '10 21:29
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    why cant his creation be more accurate and stress whether its 1st Kings or 2nd Kings for there are two you know. Anyhow, what's your gripes this time Wolfers? Solomon didn't use two decimal places? Pedantry and great learning are driving you mad my friend! Dig this my man!

    The circumference of 30 cubits is evidently a round figure, for more pre ...[text shortened]... tating matters, intended to be understood as only approximate.

    source : Jehovahs Witnesses.
    I havent bothered googling but I'm sure 22/7 was the working ratio for pi long before 3rd Century BCE.

    But if the bible just uses approximations what are we to believe of the feeding of the 4,000? The 7 days of Creation? 40 days of whatever?

    [I] believe that the writers of the bible did not intend all of it to be taken literally and therefore have no problem with pi=3.
    BUT if you insist on the whole bible being the TRUTH why allow this 'approximation'?

    Is the bible approximately true?
  4. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    11 Feb '10 21:31
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    why cant his creation be more accurate and stress whether its 1st Kings or 2nd Kings for there are two you know. Anyhow, what's your gripes this time Wolfers? Solomon didn't use two decimal places? Pedantry and great learning are driving you mad my friend! Dig this my man!

    The circumference of 30 cubits is evidently a round figure, for more pre ...[text shortened]... tating matters, intended to be understood as only approximate.

    source : Jehovahs Witnesses.
    Making up stories around the fire was was a customary way of stating matters

    Flood myths

    Creation myths

    These would all have been customs amongst primitive people.
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Feb '10 21:55
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    I havent bothered googling but I'm sure 22/7 was the working ratio for pi long before 3rd Century BCE.

    But if the bible just uses approximations what are we to believe of the feeding of the 4,000? The 7 days of Creation? 40 days of whatever?

    [I] believe that the writers of the bible did not intend all of it to be taken literally and therefore have n ...[text shortened]... ole bible being the TRUTH why allow this 'approximation'?

    Is the bible approximately true?
    oh Woolfers were you not content with the method of calculating the approximate circumference from the radius, as was the common practice according to some Biblical scholars? Why should this cast doubt upon other figures? It was a simple practice. Are we not compelled to do the very same when we submit a tax return, rounding figures up our down? Does it call into question the validity of the return? Hardly otherwise Her Majestys Inland revenue would have something to say about it. Thus it becomes not a question of legitimacy as you are trying to assert but simply of practice and convenience, to state otherwise and draw conclusions on that basis is surely unreasonable, is it not? Yes the Bible is true as you are very well aware.
  6. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    11 Feb '10 22:04
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    oh Woolfers were you not content with the method of calculating the approximate circumference from the radius, as was the common practice according to some Biblical scholars? Why should this cast doubt upon other figures? It was a simple practice. Are we not compelled to do the very same when we submit a tax return, rounding figures up our down? ...[text shortened]... that basis is surely unreasonable, is it not? Yes the Bible is true as you are very well aware.
    The truth is flexible Robbie.

    btw: If the 1:3 ratio was well known why specify the diameter and the circumference?
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Feb '10 22:141 edit
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    The truth is flexible Robbie.

    btw: If the 1:3 ratio was well known why specify the diameter [b]and
    the circumference?[/b]
    i do not know, i dont think it is stated, perhaps it was again, simple practice. One must remember that Hiram, the Hebrew-Phoenician who built it would have been concerned with these technical details, but as to why the ancient text records the circumference i do not know and think that it is futile to speculate. When one applies a rigid approach to something which was intended as an approximation its no wonder that we may have a tendency to be unreasonable, dont you think?
  8. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    11 Feb '10 22:40
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Apologies if this has been aired before but Kings 7:23-26 seems to say that pi = 3
    which according to man at the time was about right. But shouldnt god be a bit more accurate?
    Consider this:

    The common word for circumference is qav, but the Hebrew word for circumference in 1 Kings 7:23 (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.

    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., the 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch (an error 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate).

    http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/#notes
  9. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    11 Feb '10 22:59
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Consider this:

    The common word for circumference is qav, but the Hebrew word for circumference in 1 Kings 7:23 (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 var ...[text shortened]... error 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate).

    http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/#notes
    My sides are splitting!

    Pi to 12 decimal places and encoded in numerology?!?!?
  10. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    12 Feb '10 04:11
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Apologies if this has been aired before but Kings 7:23-26 seems to say that pi = 3
    which according to man at the time was about right. But shouldnt god be a bit more accurate?
    "With regard to the building of the Temple by Solomon, if it
    was really dictate by God we must maintain the same doctrine: namely,
    that all the measurements were revealed according to the opinions
    and understanding of the king; for as we are not bound to believe
    that Solomon was a mathematician, we may affirm that he was ignorant
    of the true ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a
    circle, and that, like the generality of workmen, he thought that it
    was as three to one. (76) But if it is allowable to declare that we
    do not understand the passage, in good sooth I know nothing in the
    Bible that we can understand; for the process of building is there
    narrated simply and as a mere matter of history. (2:77) If, again,
    it is permitted to pretend that the passage has another meaning,
    and was written as it is from some reason unknown to us, this is
    no less than a complete subversal of the Bible; for every absurd
    and evil invention of human perversity could thus, without detriment
    to Scriptural authority, be defended and fostered. (78) Our
    conclusion is in no wise impious, for though Solomon, Isaiah,
    Joshua, &c. were prophets, they were none the less men, and as
    such not exempt from human shortcomings." (Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus)
    http://www.philosophyarchive.com/index.php?title=A_Theologico-Political_Treatise_-_Spinoza
  11. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    12 Feb '10 10:461 edit
    Just my 2 pence worth...this thread made me think of the cafeteria in my uni maths building (I don't own the building)...it is also called "Pi in the Sky"...5 more coffees and I get another 1 free!!! :]


    ahem...carry on >;|
  12. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    12 Feb '10 10:53
    Originally posted by wolfgang59

    Is the bible approximately true?
    Depends on what kind of truth you're after, I imagine.

    You don't think that Jews or Christians are obliged to treat the Bible as a science textbook in order to be good Jews or Christians, do you?
  13. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    12 Feb '10 11:12
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Depends on what kind of truth you're after, I imagine.

    You don't think that Jews or Christians are obliged to treat the Bible as a science textbook in order to be good Jews or Christians, do you?
    No not at all!

    I have a problem understanding those that believe the bible is absolute fact.
  14. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    12 Feb '10 11:14
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    No not at all!

    I have a problem understanding those that believe the bible is absolute fact.
    Imagine a need for order and authority so vast it can extinguish the light of reason. Imagine the Bible as a symptom of that need.
Back to Top