Accuracy of Pi
1 Kings [7:23]: “And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other (diameter): [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about (circumference).”
2 Chronicles [4:2]: “Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”
Pi = Circumference / Diameter. Pi = 10 / 3, which = 3.3333333. Pi does not equal 3.33333333. This is a gross oversimplification of a very important number in the world of mathematics. I am not a mathematician, but I imagine if one asked a mathematician what the top three most important values in math are, Pi would be among them. It would have been more accurate to say that the circumference was 31 or 32, not 30.
Some things to consider about math: In 1900 BCE, the Egyptians and Babylonians had already approximated Pi to within 1% of its true value, expressed as a fraction. In the 3rd century BCE, Eratosthenes had correctly calculated the circumference and diameter of the Earth.
RESPONSE: It does not state that it is a perfect circle, only that it is “round”.
10 / 3 = 3.3333 Peter... =)
ReplyDelete*slams head on desk* You know, I spend hours working on all the writing and research for this series. In that entire time, I never once caught that mistake. That is too funny and too ironic for words. Thanks, Beas :)
ReplyDeleteI think if you get published you should add me in the acknowledgments portion like that one guy did for you!! =D
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, round is a very vague term. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, something that is round is something that is “shaped like or approximately like a circle or cylinder”. An example of this would be a basketball hoop at a fair. While they look circular, they are slightly ovular (compressed towards the back board), making it look much easier to put the ball through than it actually is. Both passages from the bible are referring to bodies of liquid constructed for King Solomon. Assume for a moment that all measurements are exact. If the long diameter of the pool was 10 units and the short diameter was 9 units, the circumference of the oval would be just under 30 units. This slight deviation would fit all of the given statements and would produce a body of liquid that was “round”. Since the author of this book of the Old Testament isn’t leaving instructions for the recreation of the “Sea”, why would he or she have refrained from rounding? While he or she could have used decimals, for the sake of description a simple round number would have been sufficient. If the body of liquid was 9.6 cubits on the long axis and 9.5 cubits on the short, the circumference would have been about 30.0026 cubits. Both 9.5 and 9.6 would have rounded up to 10, and the resulting ellipse would have been fairly close to a circle (and therefore “round”).
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the accuracy of pi, while there were fantastically accurate approximations of pi by this time, working with an irrational number when you don’t have to is cumbersome. It wouldn’t make sense to have worked out and written down the exact measurements of these constructions. We don’t even know what the tolerance was for construction back then. Even if the King ordered a circular “sea” of 10 cubits, with a 5% tolerance, the “sea” could have been a perfect circle with a circumference of 30.
All things considered, I think the representation given in the bible is pretty darn close.
Previous post removed for a small edit at the beginning of this post.
Glad to see you commenting, Zach! I will say this right now: the criticisms of Pi I pesented are weak. It all hinges on the assumption that what they were describing is a perfect circle. That is a fairly powerful, but vulnerable assumption. Take that away, and my argument crumbles.
ReplyDeleteI am fully prepared to acquiesce to your arguments. I find them convincing and reasonable. However, I will point out one thing before handing the victory over to you: there are those that not only claim that the contents of the Bible are accurate, but absolutely infallable. Now, I know you are not making that claim, but understand that there are those that believe that an all-knowing being created or inspired this book as his only set of instructions to mankind.
Oh, believe you me... I in no way believe that the bible is correct down to the letter. I do believe that a general interpretation of the bible can lead to good things, but... that's a post for another essay.
ReplyDeleteI have more posts in the works, but it takes time to formulate decent arguments. I intend to keep posting.
The interpretation of the bible can equally lead to bad things. And that's one of the major problems with the book.
ReplyDelete