What's this about pi=3

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2002-11-03 02:28pm

Where does it say that Pi = 3? I keep reading this, but I can never find the exact passage. Thanks, and have a great day!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-03 02:48pm

1 Kings 7:23. It doesn't mention pi, but it gives measurements for a circle, and you can get "pi" from that.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2002-11-03 02:50pm

neoolong wrote:1 Kings 7:23. It doesn't mention pi, but it gives measurements for a circle, and you can get "pi" from that.

IKing 7:23
23 He 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.
(NIV)

IKing 7:23
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.
(KJV)

Shadow WarChief · Post by **Shadow WarChief** » 2002-11-03 06:24pm

What does the NI stand for?"

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-03 06:35pm

Shadow WarChief wrote:What does the NI stand for?"

NIV = New International Version

KJV = King James Version

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2002-11-03 08:05pm

thank you very much all!

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-11-03 09:38pm

I can kinda overlook that considering the flexible nature of the unit of measurement itself.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-11-03 10:49pm

The point is that the Bible is not something to be looked on as absolutely and literally true in every respect.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-03 10:57pm

Uraniun235 wrote:The point is that the Bible is not something to be looked on as absolutely and literally true in every respect.

Which is the point. We use that to show that you cannot use the Bible as absolute truth.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-11-04 12:04am

neoolong wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:The point is that the Bible is not something to be looked on as absolutely and literally true in every respect.
Which is the point. We use that to show that you cannot use the Bible as absolute truth.

...Isn't that what I just said?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-04 12:43am

Uraniun235 wrote:
neoolong wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:The point is that the Bible is not something to be looked on as absolutely and literally true in every respect.
Which is the point. We use that to show that you cannot use the Bible as absolute truth.
...Isn't that what I just said?

Uh yeah. I read it wrong. I was just finishing a post to a guy that started arguing against me using the argument about pi. And his final conclusion was that my argument(pi) is worthless because you can't take the Bible literally, which was my whole point in the first place.

It all started to blur together. Sorry.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-11-04 08:41am

Howedar wrote:I can kinda overlook that considering the flexible nature of the unit of measurement itself.

Except that all the measurements are given in cubits, so any variance in the definition of a cubit wouldn't affect the ratio. So, the measurements are either appoximations, or they are wrong. Either way, the Bible cannot be taken to be strictly and literally true - anything which is 10 units across is going to be more than 30 units around.

The wording doesn't allow any hedges to get around the fact that the circumference given is at least 1.4 cubits short. Biblical inerratantists are stuck with either claiming that pi actually is exactly three, or else they have to be liberal in their interpretation (e.g. 'the 30 cubits is just a reasonable approximation') - which is hardly treating the Bible as being inerrant! If it was an approximation, why doesn't the Bible say so?

Yet another translation (NRSV - New Revised Standard Version):
"Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely"

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-11-04 11:36am

So what in the heck is the actual length of a cubit...

Shadow WarChief · Post by **Shadow WarChief** » 2002-11-04 01:11pm

EmperorMing wrote:So what in the heck is the actual length of a cubit...

I think the "scientific" definition is the length from the crook of your elbow to the tip of your fingers.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-04 01:13pm

EmperorMing wrote:So what in the heck is the actual length of a cubit...

Finger tip to elbow. It has an actual standardized length now though.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-04 01:24pm

Here we go 0.4572 meter equals 1 cubit.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-11-04 08:28pm

The wording doesn't allow any hedges to get around the fact that the circumference given is at least 1.4 cubits short. Biblical inerratantists are stuck with either claiming that pi actually is exactly three, or else they have to be liberal in their interpretation (e.g. 'the 30 cubits is just a reasonable approximation') - which is hardly treating the Bible as being inerrant! If it was an approximation, why doesn't the Bible say so?

Yet another translation (NRSV - New Revised Standard Version):
"Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely" - Nick

Perhaps earlier documents did include the word "about", such as "a line of about thirty cubits..." If the Bible had the word "about" in it, would that suddenly grant it more legitimacy in the scientific community? Probably not.

XPViking

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-11-05 06:52am

XPViking wrote:Perhaps earlier documents did include the word "about", such as "a line of about thirty cubits..." If the Bible had the word "about" in it, would that suddenly grant it more legitimacy in the scientific community? Probably not.

That's not the point - anyone with any sense is going to read that and go 'Oh, they meant that to be approximate' or 'their measuring equipment was lousy'. Either solution works - however, neither solution is allowed to anyone who asserts that the Bible is strictly and literally true. Similarly, your mistranslation or error in transcription solution works as well - but again, it is a solution not allowed to Bibilical inerrantists.

The only way to be a Biblical inerrantist is to assert that "pi=3", and that is patently false. It is just a convenient way of demonstrating how it is impossible to stay true to the idea of a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible without coming to conclusions which are demonstrably false.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-11-05 08:31am

Why do people take litterialy that which was written in Prose and Allegory?

it's ment to sound a certain way, and flow, not to be fully accurate, besides a few centuries as oral tradition exaggerations are bound to crop up. Next you have folks with Political axes to grind re editting different and conflicting versions of the same story with a mind to making it fit thier views. Really mind boggling.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-11-05 09:10am

neoolong wrote:Here we go 0.4572 meter equals 1 cubit.

Thank you.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-11-05 12:48pm

Nick,

Fair enough. So then it really is thw old story of whether a person believes in a literal translation of the Bible (pi=3 in this case) or if the Bible is allegory and myth (or lets say certains parts of it). Perhaps here it would be better to say degrees of myth and allegory. I think what happens if someone chooses the latter is then what parts exactly are myth and allegory? No wonder we have different demoninations.

XPViking

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-11-06 07:39am

XPViking wrote:Nick,

Fair enough. So then it really is thw old story of whether a person believes in a literal translation of the Bible (pi=3 in this case) or if the Bible is allegory and myth (or lets say certains parts of it). Perhaps here it would be better to say degrees of myth and allegory. I think what happens if someone chooses the latter is then what parts exactly are myth and allegory? No wonder we have different demoninations.

XPViking

Bingo. . . it is that this point that people like me ask "well, how do we decide which parts are real, which are myth, and which are allegory?". At which point, all of the denominations umm and ahh, shut their eyes, point and say "these bits are literally true, the rest of it is allegory!" (the number and location of "true" bits varying from denomination to denomination, of course) Even when two denominations agreed a particular bit was true they often disagreed about what it meant.

I found this attitude unsatisfying, to say the least - so I came to the conclusion the whole thing is myth and allegory. Belief in the transcendent, I can understand (there's lots of up sides to the existence of transcendent realms). Belief that the Bible is more than myth & allegory? I can't find any reason for that except indoctrination.

Interestingly, I only found out about the 'pi=3' thing after I had become an atheist (it was on these forums, in fact). I don't think Mike mentions it in his anti-creationism pages.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-06 12:42pm

No, I don't mention every flaw in the Bible. I am limited to only 400MB of webspace, after all

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-11-06 07:00pm

I found this attitude unsatisfying, to say the least - so I came to the conclusion the whole thing is myth and allegory. Belief in the transcendent, I can understand (there's lots of up sides to the existence of transcendent realms). Belief that the Bible is more than myth & allegory? I can't find any reason for that except indoctrination. - Nick

Might I add two more reasons why someone may believe in the Bible? Through there own searching and then conclude for themselves that it's the right path to follow or a personal encounter with God.

XPViking

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-11-06 07:15pm

Nick wrote:
Howedar wrote:I can kinda overlook that considering the flexible nature of the unit of measurement itself.
Except that all the measurements are given in cubits, so any variance in the definition of a cubit wouldn't affect the ratio. So, the measurements are either appoximations, or they are wrong. Either way, the Bible cannot be taken to be strictly and literally true - anything which is 10 units across is going to be more than 30 units around.

The thing is that it isn't a real defined unit, or rather it wasn't at the time.

This doesn't mean that I think taking the Bible literally is at all reasonable.