Changes

The claim is based on a verse in the [[I Kings|first book of Kings]]:

The claim is based on a verse in the [[I Kings|first book of Kings]]:

{{bible quote|He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten [[cubit]]s from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.|book=1_Kings|chap=7|verses=23|version=NIV}}

{{bible quote|He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten [[cubit]]s from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.|book=1_Kings|chap=7|verses=23|version=NIV}}

Thus, critics say, the Bible claims that the value of <big><math>\pi</math></big>is 3, and is therefore in error.  However, there are a number of assumptions in this claim, any of which might invalidate the argument if wrong:

Thus, critics say, the Bible claims that the value of <big><math>\pi</math></big> is 3, and is therefore in error.  However, there are a number of assumptions in this claim, any of which might invalidate the argument if wrong:

* That the tools and system of measurement available to the builders were sufficiently accurate to distinguish between pi and 3.

* That the tools and system of measurement available to the builders were sufficiently accurate to distinguish between 3 and pi.

* That the phrase translated as "circular in shape" means perfectly circular, not simply "round" as an ellipse is round.

* That the phrase translated as "circular in shape" means perfectly circular, not simply "round" as an ellipse is round.

* That the Bible is trying to provide a value for <big><math>\pi</math></big>, and not merely describing the size of the object.<ref name="math">Peterson and Rick, 1999.</ref>

* That the Bible is trying to provide a value for <big><math>\pi</math></big>, and not merely describing the historical event of building this object.<ref name="math">Peterson and Rick, 1999.</ref>

* That a value is ''wrong'' simply because it is imprecise. 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>  

* That a value is ''wrong'' simply because it is imprecise. To the nearest [[whole number]], the value is correct<ref name="math" />, and it was quite common at the time to round to whole numbers.<ref name="jph">Holding, J.P.</ref>  

* That both the [[diameter]] and the [[circumference]] are measuring the same edges. Since the sides of any practical vessel has a thickness, it is possible that the diameter is an outside measurement and the circumference is an inside measurement.<ref name="jph" />

* That both the [[diameter]] and the [[circumference]] are measuring the same edges. Since the sides of any practical vessel have thickness, it is possible that the diameter is an outside measurement and the circumference is an inside measurement.<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>

* 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.

Common sense and a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible should cause one to question whether it sets out to define mathematical concepts.  The creation of a "sea of cast metal" by human beings in ancient times, without modern construction tools and measuring equipment, does not require nor could it utilize a precise value for pi.  An even more fundamental objection is that pi is an [[irrational number]], and therefore has an infinite number of digits.  (A "closed form" of pi does exist, but requires mathematical notation that was invented many centuries later.) A decimal expression of pi could not "fit" in the Bible, or in any other finite text.<ref>http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52573.html</ref>

==Bibliography==

==Bibliography==