Biblical "contradictions" #4: What is pi?

[lautz73]

I know your "answers" are bogus just by looking below the video. you get all of your information of answersingensis. That makes your information about as believable as asking a 2 year old to teach me pyhsics.

[gary031183]

You are pretty young but nice try kid. Maybe one day you will be able to see the other side of things and not inprison yourself in religion. Atleast we can see that it will be your choice and not something your parents forced you into. Just please don't be one of those fundies that wants ID taught in school and the bible posted on every govt building. I have said my peace! OUT!

[HolyFuckinShitBatman]

It's not a contradiction it's just an error. They had no universal accurate measurement system so the Bible authors just put the rough numbers in.

However, the Egyptians built the pyramids 2500 years before the bible using pi of 3 and 1/7 (3.1428) which is more accurate. This makes me think the people who wrote the bible probably did not understand that much about pi, indeed perhaps they believed it was exactly 3 which gives rise to the idea of a trinity. There, explained.

[Haekel68]

Atheists and other people ignorant of scripture perpetuate the lie that the Bible says pi is 3.0. They conveniently leave out the thickness of the brass bowl, which is clearly found in 1kings 7-26. If you include the thickness, you can make a formula (30cubits/pi + 2handbreadths = 10cubits). 30cubits is the INSIDE diameter. I have made an AutoCAD drawing of this example if anyone is interested, or if anyone STILL things the Bible is wrong about pi. It's just an atheists common mistake.

[doloafing]

I'm a fairly ardent atheist, but I must admit, I never liked this contradiction.

It seems like you're picking at such small issues when you bring this up. How's this for an explanation? Their measurements were not entirely accurate, and they said "close enough".

This is not the nail in the coffin that many atheists seem to think it is. There are plenty bigger, sturdier and more obvious ones in there. This argument is just kind of pathetic.

[Strikr333]

The first recorded case of the use of pi was approximately in the year of 2000 B.C. The ancient civilizations at this time one example is mesopotamia used a much cruder value they used just 3.... p=3 if you researched ancient history before you start spreading lies you would know this. using just 3 wich they did in those times the math works out. Next time research before you post things you don't know about

[Atriviality]

So essentially, what you're saying is whoever wrote that part of the Bible was inaccurate.

[scotzbhoy]

No, I've no idea where you got that from. Try watching the video.

[Atriviality]

I did. Twice.

1) The writers rounded it off without any indication of doing so (i.e. whoever wrote that part of the Bible was inaccurate).

2) The writers talked about 2 different measurements without any indication of doing so (i.e. whoever wrote that part of the Bible was inaccurate).

3) The writers talked about 2 different measurements without any indication of doing so (i.e. whoever wrote that part of the Bible was inaccurate).

In each and every case you found it's the same message.

[scotzbhoy]

1) A cubit is not a measurement that could be given accurately in fractions other than a half. It was the only measurement used in length measurements, so they had no alternative.

2) They do give possible indication of this, in 1 Kings 26:7.

[Atriviality]

1) The earliest attested standard measure is from Egypt and was called the Royal Cubit (Mahe) and was 523.5 to 524 mm in length, and was subdivided into 7 palms of 4 digits, giving a 28 part measure in total. Secure evidence for this unit is known from architecture, from at least as early as the construction of the Step Pyramid of Djoser from around 2,700 B.C.

2) There is no such thing as "1 Kings 26:7". 1 Kings only goes to 22:51.

[scotzbhoy]

1) The Egyptian cubit was used in all measurements in the bible, generaly about 18 inches. It was a mans forearm, elbow to extended fingertip, but obviously a man's forearm does not readily lend itself to the measurement of fractions of a forearm.

2) My bad, that was meant to be 1 Kings 7:26.

[Atriviality]

1) The Egyptian cubit was about 20.6 inches, and was still divided into 7 palms (or hand's breadth if you will) of about 2.4 inches each, or 28 fingers of about 0.6 inches each. Seeing as the cubit was a divisible standard unit of measurement, they could have been more accurate (e.g. 31 cubits and 3 hands breadths would have been much closer), but were not.

2) They make no indication that they are measuring a different brim to the one indicated in 1 Kings 7:23.

[scotzbhoy]

2) The cubit used in the bible would not have been divided. Look through the rest of the bible. There are half cubits, but no quarter cubits or third cubits. So they would have rounded to the nearest cubit, since it could not be divided.

2) Verse 23 says it was measured 'from brim to brim', indicating the outside of the brim, and the circumference was measured with a line 'round about' (v 23), which would have obviously been around the main body of the vessel.

[Atriviality]

1) You said, "The Egyptian cubit was used in all measurements in the bible", and I told you the Egyptian cubit was divisible into 7 palms or 28 fingers. Why would "The cubit used in the bible would not have been divided"? You have said yourself, "There are half cubits" which would be 14 fingers, 1/4 cubits would be 7 fingers, and 1/3 cubits would be 9 1/3 fingers.

2) Because they are using the word "brim" in both 23 & 26, they are talking about the external dimensions only.

[scotzbhoy]

1) Apoligies, I don't know why I said that. Having looked at the site which I put on the side, the cubit apparently used was the Hebrew cubit. However, we cannot be sure. But the point is, cubits in the bible are not split up. The cubit was rounded. It's not as precise as maybe it could be, but so what? The measurements were not important.

2) I never said they used internal dimensions. 'Brim to brim' clearly meant across the top where the lip was. The circumference was probably around the body.

[Atriviality]

1) "The Hebrew cubit (אמח or ammah an arm) is today held to be the same as a Roman cubit as used by Flavius Josephus." (Conservapedia, 'cubit'). The Roman cubit was also divisible into 24 fingers and 6 palms.

2) I never said you were. I said THEY (the writers of the Bible) are using the word "brim" in both 23 & 26, they are talking about the external dimensions only. There is no indication that they are suddenly talking about something else.

[scotzbhoy]

1) As I said, we cannot be sure whether or not it was the Hebrew cubit. What we do know is that in the bible, cubits are never divided into parts. Period.

2) No idea what you're talking about here. The diameter was from 'brim to brim', clearly the brim of the vessel at the top, and the circumference was 'a line of 30 cubits' which 'did compass it round about'. This seems to indicate 30 cubits being measured around the vessel.