Block
1,976
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 41:
Line 41: − * The Bible is trying to provide a value for <big><math>\pi</math></big>. This is clearly not the case; it is merely describing the size of the object.<ref name="math">Peterson and Rick, 1999.</ref> − * The value in the Bible is ''wrong'', rather than just imprecise. However, to the nearest [[whole number]], the value is correct,<ref name="math" /> and it was quite common at the time to round numbers.<ref name="jph">Holding, J.P.</ref> For instance the value of 10 could actually be any value between 9.5 and 10.5. If it was to the lower end of that range, then the equation works. − * That both the [[diameter]] and the [[circumference]] are measuring the same edges. It's possible, even if unlikely, that the diameter is an outside measurement and the circumference is an inside measurement. A straight calculation doesn't allow for the thickness of the sides.<ref name="jph" /> − * That both the diameter and the circumference are measuring the same part of the object. The object is also described as having an outward-turned rim. The easiest places to measure the diameter would be across the wider rim, and the easiest place to measure the circumference would be around the body below the rim.<ref>Grigg, 1995.</ref> + + + + +
→Does the Bible attempt to define Pi?
There are a number of assumptions involved in making this claim, and if any one of the assumptions is wrong, the claim is false.
There are a number of assumptions involved in making this claim, and if any one of the assumptions is wrong, the claim is false.
The assumptions are:
The assumptions are:
* That the tools and system of measurement used were scientifically accurate, which is unlikely given the time period.
* That the tools and system of measurement used were scientifically accurate, which is unlikely given the time period.
* That "circular in shape" means perfectly circular.
* The Bible is trying to provide a value for <big><math>\pi</math></big>. This is clearly not the case; it is merely describing the size of the object.<ref name="math">Peterson and Rick, 1999.</ref>
* The value in the Bible is ''wrong'', rather than just imprecise. However, to the nearest [[whole number]], the value is correct,<ref name="math" /> and it was quite common at the time to round numbers.<ref name="jph">Holding, J.P.</ref> For instance the value of 10 could actually be any value between 9.5 and 10.5. If it was to the lower end of that range, then the equation works.
* That both the [[diameter]] and the [[circumference]] are measuring the same edges. It's possible, even if unlikely, that the diameter is an outside measurement and the circumference is an inside measurement. A straight calculation doesn't allow for the thickness of the sides.<ref name="jph" />
* That both the diameter and the circumference are measuring the same part of the object. The object is also described as having an outward-turned rim. The easiest places to measure the diameter would be across the wider rim, and the easiest place to measure the circumference would be around the body below the rim.<ref>Grigg, 1995.</ref>
However, even if the claim is correct, rounding <big><math>\pi</math></big> to 3 is not "incorrect," an "error" or "wrong" and is perfectly acceptable in some circumstances.<ref>http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52573.html</ref> The creation of a "sea of cast metal" by human beings (not God) in ancient times without modern construction tools and measuring equipment is easily understood as one of those circumstances.
However, even if the claim is correct, rounding <big><math>\pi</math></big> to 3 is not "incorrect," an "error" or "wrong" and is perfectly acceptable in some circumstances.<ref>http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52573.html</ref> The creation of a "sea of cast metal" by human beings (not God) in ancient times without modern construction tools and measuring equipment is easily understood as one of those circumstances.