The Bible and Pi

[The_Gorgonzola]

I was reading about the Bible and Pi at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html which states:

The Bible says pi is 3!
In I Kings 7:23, the Bible says:

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.

If you make a molten sea with a circumference of thirty cubits, you'll find that the diameter is 30/pi or 9.55 cubits. Or ten cubits, to round to the nearest integer.

In short, the Bible does not say that pi must be three, unless you are going to assume that the numbers given are accurate to more than two significant figures, which is unjustifiable given the wording.

I think this incorrect. pi=c/d therefore, given a cirumfernce of 30 and a diamter of 10, pi must equal 3.

I don't understand the last paragraph.

Anyone want to help me out?

Gorgo

[Toto]

Your profile says you are a "systems engineer". What is your math background?

This seems pretty obvious to me.

[The_Gorgonzola]

Originally posted by Toto:

This seems pretty obvious to me.
I guess what I'm not understanding is the line "it is unjustifiable given the wording". Is this person refering to the wording of the text? 10 cubits diameter (rim to rim) by 30 cubits circumference (around). Obviously I am missing something.....

Gorgo

[DrLao]

Yes, he is referring to the wording of the text. Since only 2 digits are given for both the diameter and the circumference, it would not be justifiable to assume that they are accurate than 2 significant digits.

[Toto]

I think it means that it is unjustifiable to assume that the text is referring to numbers that are accurate to more that 2 significant digits, given that it uses words that are whole numbers.

For example, if the Bible said
And he made a molten sea, 10.00 cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was 5.00 cubits: and a line of 30.00 cubits did compass it round about.


then you could be sure that the writer really thought that pi = 3.

But it said ten cubits, and in fact 9.55 cubits would make the math work out. So all you know is that the writer thought pi was close to 3, which it is.

[The_Gorgonzola]

GAWD!!! I must be tired!!! Sig figs...duh!! Thanks guys....


Gorgo (feeling rather stupid right now)

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: The_Gorgonzola ]</p>

[Boro Nut]

Bollocks. They may not have had decimal points but they did have fractions. If it was talking about a 10 sheckle loan you can bet it would quote interest "unto the tenth part thereof".

Boro Nut

[Vorkosigan]

This is really a weak contradiction. I wish Asimov and others had never mentioned it.

Vorkosigan

[Gooch's dad]

The significant figure argument doesn't wash.

You can't just argue that a 30 cubit circumference would yield a 9.55 cubit diameter, which is 10 to 2 significant digits.

How often do you build something and consider the circumference first? The tank was 10 cubits across. The circumference SHOULD have been stated as 31 cubits. THAT is two significant figures of accuracy. 30 is wrong.

I very much doubt that the Hebrews would have asked someone to build a circular tank and specify the circumference, and leave out the diameter.

[DrLao]

[quote]Originally posted by Gooch's dad:
<strong>You can't just argue that a 30 cubit circumference would yield a 9.55 cubit diameter, which is 10 to 2 significant digits.</strong><hr></blockquote>Actually, it isn't. 9.55 is 9.6 to two sig. figs. But they didn't say that there were two sig. figs. They said it is not justified to assume more than two sig. figs. It is possible to read it as having only a single sig. fig. for both circumference and diameter.

[Pantera]

Did the Hebrews use a base 10 number system? If not, the question of significant figures is meaningless is't it?

[Toto]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
This is really a weak contradiction. I wish Asimov and others had never mentioned it.

Vorkosigan

But it does make for some fun to twit the creationists:

Responding to pressure from religious groups, Alabama's state legislature redefined the value of pi from 3.14159 to 3 in order to bring it in line with Biblical precepts. (http://www.snopes2.com/religion/pi.htm)

See also FLAT (http://www.kansan.com/arch/1999spring/03_31_99/news/posh3-31.html)

Philip Kimball, local fiction writer and FLAT treasurer, said the secular humanist value of pi contributed to moral, spiritual and social decay.

“Pi is now taught to be 3.14, which is an irrational number,� Kimball said. “That implies that God's creation is irrational, which leads to moral corrosion.�

The Bible, in I Kings 7:23, puts the value of pi at 3. FLAT plans a demonstration at 2 p.m. on April 3 at South Park to prove the Biblical value of pi.

Also see the lengths some people will go to for Biblical inerrancy (http://www.yfiles.com/pi.html) (also the Rabbinical exegisis (http://www.math.ubc.ca/people/faculty/israel/bpi/bpi.html).)

[Joe Nobody]

Could its thickness being a handbreath (3 inches)have any bearing on this?

Joe Nobody

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
This is really a weak contradiction. I wish Asimov and others had never mentioned it.


I disagree, it�s not that weak. In the YLT:

23: And he maketh the molten sea, ten by the cubit from its edge unto its edge; round all about, and five by the cubit [is] its height, and a line of thirty by the cubit doth compass it round about;

It�s only talking roughly, implies you. However:

24: and knops beneath its brim round about are compassing it, ten by the cubit, going round the sea round about; in two rows [are] the knops, cast in its being cast.

Now I neither know not particularly care what a knop is, but whoever was doing the casting of them would have quickly noticed that they were short of knops. According to verse 23, the circumference is 30 cubits, so there should be 300 knops. They would either need an extra 14 of them, or the diameter was only 9.5 cubits. Verse 24 specifically says they were ten per cubit. It just doesn�t work. You can�t put ten per cubit round the outside and have it be precisely 300. The only reason the circumference needs mentioning (just saying it was 10 wide would tell the reader the size) is to then describe the knops round it.

The point is that they could easily have got it right and given the right number, or said �[i]about so-and-so size�. If it�s just figurative, why give the measurements exactly? Looks like they only knew it roughly to me.

We can mentally insert �approximately�, and it�s fine. But literalists won�t tamper with the bible by interpreting it. Hence, under their terms, the bible is wrong.

Oolon

[SmashingIdols]

I have been waiting until the conversation reached a lull to ask if anybody paid attention to what the purpose of this "sea" was?

Does everybody here know exactly what they were about to fill it with? Just interjecting something that may be off topic, but pretty ironic.

You are measuring a bloodbath.

[General Septem]

You people really need to get a life.

Edited to remove link

[show_no_mercy]

Edited to remove link

You people really need to get a life.

I suppose your richly fulfulled life includes digging up posts that are over 3 years old?

[General Septem]

I suppose your richly fulfulled life includes digging up posts that are over 3 years old?
I found it on Google. :\

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I found it on Google. :\
And you say we need a life? Did you even read the thread? Most everyone in it agreed that the Pi=3 thing is a weak example of "errancy" (I have no idea why it's particularly "anti-Catholic, though. I Kings is a Jewish book, after all).

[General Septem]

And you say we need a life? Did you even read the thread? Most everyone in it agreed that the Pi=3 thing is a weak example of "errancy" (I have no idea why it's particularly "anti-Catholic, though. I Kings is a Jewish book, after all).
It's anti-Catholic because it is a part of the Catholic Bible as well. I did actually read the thread, and I didn't get the same impression that everyone thought the argument was weak. But anyway, I digress.

[RUmike]

I suppose your richly fulfulled life includes digging up posts that are over 3 years old?

I was thinking exactly the same thing :rolling:

[Doug Shaver]

This is really a weak contradiction. I wish Asimov and others had never mentioned it.

Vorkosigan
I agree that as an argument against inerrancy, it's a silly one. Especially considering how many really good ones there are.

[John A. Broussard]

I must be missing something.

If the bible says that pi equals three, doesn't that settle the matter?

After all, if god can make the sun stand still, making pi equal three should be child's play.

[Wads4]

Bollocks. They may not have had decimal points but they did have fractions. If it was talking about a 10 sheckle loan you can bet it would quote interest "unto the tenth part thereof".

Boro Nut

Yes but did they have accurate standardised weights and measures?

[Boro Nut]

Yes but did they have accurate standardised weights and measures?

Well they certainly had stones, but they were also secrets apparently, and women weren't allowed to touch them on pain of death, even though by defenition they couldn't have known about them.

Boro Nut