Mistake or Question?

[busterdog]

1Ki 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.

Is this a question of error or silence that implies a question?

This came to mind in discussing the "smallest of seeds" from Matthew, about which we seem to differ.

The intended comparison is with Gen. 1&2, where there are obvious unresolved issues in both camps.

 

[Mallon]

Personally, I shall be very interested to know what a plain, literal, exegetical interpretation of this passage suggests to anti-evolutionists. I will fancy a guess and suppose none will be brought forth.

 

[FranciscanJ]

I remember back in my early Chiristian days, with an interest in the bizzare stuff of Chuck Missler, reading about his solution before I ever knew there was a problem.

http://www.ldolphin.org/pi/

It's actually kind of funny because I still have no idea what he is talking about.

He seems to get into all of these "hidden codes" which, while interesting in a sci fi sense, seem a little out there.

 

[busterdog]

Personally, I shall be very interested to know what a plain, literal, exegetical interpretation of this passage suggests to anti-evolutionists.

Comprehension of pi (before the Greeks) and mathematical accuracy to 15 thousandsth of the inch.

However, as I came to hear how that works, I kind of got the feeling I had been baited or tested.

 

[busterdog]

I remember back in my early Chiristian days, with an interest in the bizzare stuff of Chuck Missler, reading about his solution before I ever knew there was a problem.

http://www.ldolphin.org/pi/

It's actually kind of funny because I still have no idea what he is talking about.

He seems to get into all of these "hidden codes" which, while interesting in a sci fi sense, seem a little out there.

Not at all. You just have to present the information in the right order. If you begin with the proposition that the text poses a question, it all becomes quite logical.


1. You have a clear problem with the two dimensions, since they do not bear the correct relationship.
2. Obvioulsy molten sea has an inside and outside circumference. If you didn't get this one, you need to learn a valuable lesson about scripture. The story could end right there. Though, that the text seems to make a choice is itself provocative.
3. Is there confirmation about this relationship between inside and outside circumference? We need to look in the text for a ratio between inside and outside circumference.
4. The "misspelling" of quav (compassed round about) as quaveh is noted by the author. The ratio between the two spellings provides the ratio between inside and outside circumference. See below
5. That the ratio provides a value of pi has got to be beyond mere coincidence.
6. Note the spelling change is equivalent to changing Abram to Abraham - addiing the breath of God or "heh" or Holy Spirit.

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

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/

 

[picnic]

I think the author is using nice round numbers of 10, 5 and 30. There is certainly more elegance to it than say 10, 5 and 31.4. Is it important that's it not exact? Maybe the diameter is measured from the outer rim and the circumference round the inner of. We don't know and it's not an issue of great theological importance.

 

[busterdog]

I think the author is using nice round numbers of 10, 5 and 30. There is certainly more elegance to it than say 10, 5 and 31.4. Is it important that's it not exact? Maybe the diameter is measured from the outer rim and the circumference round the inner of. We don't know and it's not an issue of great theological importance.

It is of great theological importance to some. It is of great importance to those who think this is a "gotcha" for the quality of the science in the Bible. It is an example of time and study removing an apparent conflict.

Science assumes it will remove problems like the lack of a unified theory with time and study.

Scripture is no less (and probably more) likely to be proven to be 100% true.

The next question is, where else do we see that the surface text does not meet some people's expectations of accuracy? Well, Gen. 1 &2.

It also is of importance to those who believe in inerrancy, since it requires that one be open to and pursue wisdom by the Holy Spirit.

 

[random_guy]

I think it was a good approximation at its time. It shouldn't be used as a reason to say, "The Bible is false, since pi=3!". All the rationalization of explaining how the Bible is superior in terms of mathematics because it so accurately estimates pi is also wrong (like the webpages that talk about the inner/outer circumference). Don't use the Bible as a math book. That's not its purpose. All the talk about how accurate/inaccurate pi is misses the bigger picture.

Of course, I may be biased because I'm also a math major. I would buy the accurate argument if the Bible said something like:
ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of forty times the sum of (1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9-...+(-1)^(n)*1/(2n+1) cubits did compass it round about. Then I would believe that the Bible was a math book.

 

[Mallon]

I think it's a good approximation of pi, as well. But...
(1) There is no indication here that the author even understood what pi was.
(2) The passage says more about divine inspiration than the mathematical accuracy of the Bible. Christian anti-evolutionists will argue that the Bible is 100% accurate in its entirety. This is a nice example where it is not entirely accurate. You can play apologetics all you want and pretend there was some rounding going on, but if God controlled the minds of men and inspired those exact words, you have to ask yourself why would God need to round?

 

[busterdog]

I think it's a good approximation of pi, as well. But...
(1) There is no indication here that the author even understood what pi was.
(2) The passage says more about divine inspiration than the mathematical accuracy of the Bible. Christian anti-evolutionists will argue that the Bible is 100% accurate in its entirety. This is a nice example where it is not entirely accurate. You can play apologetics all you want and pretend there was some rounding going on, but if God controlled the minds of men and inspired those exact words, you have to ask yourself why would God need to round?

Let's be clinical for a moment. Is the math from Missler 1. compelling evidence that pi was contemplated; 2. some evidence that pi might have been contemplated; 3. meritless nonsense?

It sounds like you see this as nothing but coincidence and of no value.

 

[Smidlee]

I went to Lowe's today to buy some 2x4 to fix my floor from water damage. Do you know not one of these board was actually 2x4? (they were actually 1 1/2 x 3 1/2) Does this mean those in construction totally suck at math?

 

[Brennan]

The 'ratio' is not 100% accurate though. Is it?

 

[shernren]

The 'ratio' is not 100% accurate though. Is it?

It can never be, since pi is irrational (cannot be written as a ratio of two integers) and transcendental (cannot be written as a root of a polynomial with rational coefficients). So any human method of writing pi that doesn't involve infinite series or other transcendental numbers is (as random_guy was saying) de facto inaccurate; it's only a question of how accurate or how inaccurate. So I don't see what the big deal is here, except to a gematriyot fan. Do you?

 

[busterdog]

I think it's a good approximation of pi, as well. But...
(1) There is no indication here that the author even understood what pi was.
(2) The passage says more about divine inspiration than the mathematical accuracy of the Bible. Christian anti-evolutionists will argue that the Bible is 100% accurate in its entirety. This is a nice example where it is not entirely accurate. You can play apologetics all you want and pretend there was some rounding going on, but if God controlled the minds of men and inspired those exact words, you have to ask yourself why would God need to round?

Yes, it means that the HS will exceed expectations and is able to work in tolerances beyond human ability. Even today it would be nearly impossible to build this thing to these tolerances. That is a pretty good explanation of the "rounding". The enormous improbability of this arrangement is pretty impressive. Asking that the irrational number be expressed in a set of specs is pretty picky.

A similar point is made with the "mustard seed". Perhaps the Lord is not completely without a sense of irony in that he has provoked his critics to challenged his description of the smallest of the seeds in the field. Seeds and fields are consistently used as agricultural idioms. Is there a smaller seed sown by man than a seed of the cruciferous family? Again the scripture poses a question. For some the answer, somewhat comically, is to suggest error with the example of a parasite! Ie, the seed of an orchid.

 

[Brennan]

It can never be, since pi is irrational (cannot be written as a ratio of two integers) and transcendental (cannot be written as a root of a polynomial with rational coefficients). So any human method of writing pi that doesn't involve infinite series or other transcendental numbers is (as random_guy was saying) de facto inaccurate; it's only a question of how accurate or how inaccurate. So I don't see what the big deal is here, except to a gematriyot fan. Do you?

Why not say in the actual text that the circumference was 3 times the ratio of 111/106 times the diameter? Explain the fact that 111/106 was used and not 22/7 or a more accurate approximation. Explain why an infinite series was not stated explicitly. Explain the exact origin of this mysterious typo or correction or whatever it is (it doesn't sound like it was in the original text)

Yes, it means that the HS will exceed expectations and is able to work in tolerances beyond human ability. Even today it would be nearly impossible to build this thing to these tolerances. That is a pretty good explanation of the "rounding". The enormous improbability of this arrangement is pretty impressive. Asking that the irrational number be expressed in a set of specs is pretty picky.

A similar point is made with the "mustard seed". Perhaps the Lord is not completely without a sense of irony in that he has provoked his critics to challenged his description of the smallest of the seeds in the field. Seeds and fields are consistently used as agricultural idioms. Is there a smaller seed sown by man than a seed of the cruciferous family? Again the scripture poses a question. For some the answer, somewhat comically, is to suggest error with the example of a parasite! Ie, the seed of an orchid.

There is a point at which analysis of scripture becomes foolish. Both these arguments are past that point.

 

[artybloke]

I'm not sure I understand the title; where's the question? Or should it be "Mistake or what: that is the Question?"

I don't think it's a mistake either; it only becomes a mistake if you think the Bible has to be absolutely scientifically accurate or it's "false."

It is more elegant as a sentence the way it is. Imagine if Tennyson had written "Into the Valley of Death rode the five hundred and ninety-eight" or something; it would hardly make for great poetry even if it were strictly exact. Accurate science is hardly the point of the Bible.

 

[busterdog]

Why not say in the actual text that the circumference was 3 times the ratio of 111/106 times the diameter? Explain the fact that 111/106 was used and not 22/7 or a more accurate approximation. Explain why an infinite series was not stated explicitly. Explain the exact origin of this mysterious typo or correction or whatever it is (it doesn't sound like it was in the original text)
There is a point at which analysis of scripture becomes foolish. Both these arguments are past that point.

I was about to respond to the former, but hey, seeing the last sentence, I guess I shouldn't bother.

 

[busterdog]

I'm not sure I understand the title; where's the question? Or should it be "Mistake or what: that is the Question?"

I don't think it's a mistake either; it only becomes a mistake if you think the Bible has to be absolutely scientifically accurate or it's "false."

It is more elegant as a sentence the way it is. Imagine if Tennyson had written "Into the Valley of Death rode the five hundred and ninety-eight" or something; it would hardly make for great poetry even if it were strictly exact. Accurate science is hardly the point of the Bible.

Well, the writer clearly understood the mathematical issues, yet chose to state the issue with a rather amibiguous surface text. The question to us is, so what do you think about that apparent ambiguity? Is it a mistake or do you just need to dig deeper. That question exists in may places where we assume that a mere poetic understanding will do.

 

[Mallon]

Yes, it means that the HS will exceed expectations and is able to work in tolerances beyond human ability. Even today it would be nearly impossible to build this thing to these tolerances. That is a pretty good explanation of the "rounding". The enormous improbability of this arrangement is pretty impressive. Asking that the irrational number be expressed in a set of specs is pretty picky.

I always have the hardest time understanding what you're trying to say (though it seems I'm not the only one in this thread).
It seems you're trying to say that the Holy Spirit accomodates limitations to human intelligence. It speaks through such limitations in order to achieve its objective of communicating spiritual truth. If that's the case, then I agree with you 100%. And I would argue that 1 Kings 7:23 isn't the only passage to do this.

 

[busterdog]

I'm not sure I understand the title; where's the question? Or should it be "Mistake or what: that is the Question?"

I don't think it's a mistake either; it only becomes a mistake if you think the Bible has to be absolutely scientifically accurate or it's "false."

It is more elegant as a sentence the way it is. Imagine if Tennyson had written "Into the Valley of Death rode the five hundred and ninety-eight" or something; it would hardly make for great poetry even if it were strictly exact. Accurate science is hardly the point of the Bible.

The question is, what are you going to believe? Are you going to believe that the Bible made a mistake or are you going to wait for a revelation of its accuracy?

This passage makes the point that you can demand accuracy -- beyond mere poetry -- from the Bible and it will satisfy.

As for the accuracy of this particular expression of pi, the argument can be made that pi doesn't exist, ie, it is irrational. Some theorists suggest that the universe is a digital coding -- ie, there is an irreducible quantity that is the smallest size there is -- the planck space. Thus, it is more like a digital model than a purely mathematical model, in which irrational numbers exist. The Hebrew language is of course a digital expression of numerical values. God as maker (not theoretician) would apparently have a preference to working within a certain tolerance for measurement, as would an aritisan, as opposed to the language of the theoretician, which, arguably, is simply ill suited to a a digital reality. As an infinite series of numbers, pi actually misses the mark in its attempt to model what is real, according to some arguments. Theoreticiams will argue that there is no true randomness and no true infinity in our physics, but only approximations of the same. Thus, pi is the poor approximation for real measurement, not the other way around.

Thus, the charge of rounding and inaccuracy in the mathematics of this passage only begs the question of who has a better handle on pi, us or God?