The stupidity and innumeracy of Americans, and in particular American fundamentalists, never ceases to astound me.
Recently on Yahoo, some bozo posted something claiming that the bible was all correct, and that genetics would show that bats were actually birds. But that's not the real prize. The real prize of the discussion was in the ensuing thread.
A doubter posted the following question:
please explain 1 kings 7.23 and how a circle can have a circumference of 30 of a unit and a radiius of 10 of a unit and i will become a christian
23 And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. (1 Kings 7:23, NKJV)
And the answer is one of the all-time greats of moronic innumeracy:
Very easy. You are talking about the value of Pi. That is actually 3 not 3.14....... The digits after the decimal forms a geometric series and it will converge to the value zero. So, 3.14.....=3.00=3. Nobody still calculated the precise value of Pi. In future they will and apply advenced Mathematics to prove the value of Pi=3.
Comments
I just hurt my throat laughing. I hope you're pleased with what you've done...
***Wanders off in search of a strepsil***
Posted by: Corkscrew | August 13, 2006 11:26 AM
Corkscrew:
Why yes, I am rather pleased :-)
That was exactly my reaction when I first read it. I was sitting at my computer hacking away, and I decided to take a look at sitemeter to see who was linking to me today. There was a link from "godisdead.info", so I went to see what was there. They collect crazy things that creationists say. I saw something about pi, followed the link, and just broke out laughing so hard I choked myself. My wife thought I was going insane :-)
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 13, 2006 11:42 AM
The most mathematically sophisticated response I've heard to 1 Kings 7:23 is the one where the Biblical literalist points out that the Universe is non-Euclidean, so God just warped space by a miracle, allowing those dimensions to be true. What's a little positive curvature to God, huh?
Posted by: Canuckistani | August 13, 2006 11:43 AM
The stupidity you have to deal with must feel magnified. Saying Pi=3 must sound like someone telling you that water is dry and fire is cold to you.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 13, 2006 11:43 AM
Next we'll learn how in the future they will redefine what the word science means.... oh wait.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 13, 2006 11:45 AM
That is truly rich. I'd like to think the guy is joking, but I've seen too many examples of people spouting off arrant nonsense in complete sincerity.
Some apologists have cooked up an explanation for the apparent implication in the Bible that pi is three. They claim that you actually get 3.14 as the value of pi if you make certain carefully chosen assumptions about the thickness of the bronze basin. A good example of this special pleading can be found at Purplemath.
Posted by: Zeno | August 13, 2006 11:46 AM
I'm not sure the doubter is that much more of a genius - the quote says brim to brim which looks more like a diameter of 10 cubits giving not an appalling estimation. In fact if 10 was roughly an overestimate of 2.3% and 30 an underestimate by the same 2.3% one has an accurate value. Alternatively assuming the same measuring rope and looking at the same fixed error the 10 was an overestimate of around 0.342 and 30 underestimate of the same length
If the rope was marked in whole cubits and they rounded to the nearest cubit the numbers are fair enough. Notch up a convert.
I've no idea where to start with the inspired respondee. maybe http://www.joyofpi.com/
Outstanding anyway.
Posted by: John | August 13, 2006 11:48 AM
Well... I think the answer is pretty obvious if you assume the Sea was a bowl shape. It could be a hemisphere, actually, if it was "completely round," ten cubits across, and five deep. It would be sort of difficult to actually measure the distance around the thing with a measuring stick (since sticks are not curved) or a rope (that would tend to slip off the edge). So if you were going to measure the distance around a hemispherical bowl with a rope, you'd put the line a little below the edge. How far below the edge you need to put itis a simple exercise I'm too lazy to... I mean I'll leave it up to the high school children of the reader.
Posted by: speedwell | August 13, 2006 12:14 PM
P.S. I work for engineers. I can think of five ways the Bible calculation problem might have happened, but they all involve tolerances and/or simple sloppiness.
Posted by: speedwell | August 13, 2006 12:16 PM
Speedwell: I think the standard apologia is that the "brim to brim" is measuring the outside of the bowl, whereas the rope is measuring the inside of the bowl. This gives us a bowl thickness of 0.45 cubits=19.2cm. However, that doesn't correspond too well with 1 Kings 7:26 - "And it was a hand breadth thick" - unless Solomon had very big hands...
Additionally, this would require about 268 cubits (= 21 cubic metres) of bronze (not including the bronze cows), weighing in at about 168 metric tonnes. If we say that a really good weightlifter can lift half a tonne, it would take over 300 of these to shift the thing. Obviously pulleys and so on would make life easier, but this sounds a little OTT to me. Anyone got any information on whether Solomon's mob would have had the knowhow to move this thing into Solomon's bathroom?
Posted by: Corkscrew | August 13, 2006 1:15 PM
I don't envy mathmeticians -- looks like you're all going to be very busy figuring out how to make 3.142=3. That should keep you busy. :)
Posted by: QrazyQat | August 13, 2006 2:14 PM
The bible is well known to be accurate only to one significant figure.
Posted by: bmurray | August 13, 2006 3:15 PM
Yes, in this case at least, we know that the "0"s in "30" and in "10" do not count as sig-figs. Oh, if only the rabbinical compilers of 1 Kings had written "1e1" and "3e1"!
Growing up in Alabama, one hears many dumb things said in the Biblical literalist vein. Occasionally, a true stinker of a statement --- like this one --- will burst forth in all its mercaptanic splendor, leaving you wondering just what kind of pathological personality is needed to make people want to say things like that.
On the plus side, I bet we could all earn a tidy profit from our "π = 3" friends, though we'd have to do it in moderate steps. Extorting anybody who believes that $1.99 = $1 can't be that hard!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 13, 2006 5:31 PM
With divine inspiration (Pi == 3), I drew a blessed xian wheel, Figure 1 (not shown). But it looks like a flat tire?!?
Posted by: 601 | August 13, 2006 6:11 PM
That someone with the capacity to boot up a computer and nominally interact with its innards using a keyboard would make the claim that 3.14 = 3 because the Bible implies that it must is just more evidence that beliefs are far more powerful than facts, especially those hammered into minds too young and malleable to offer even token resistance to utterly befriggered ideas. I'm starting to think that religious indoctrination at the hands of Bible literalists is, in essence, a form of child abuse. Jesus H. Baldheaded Christ in a fifth-degree polynomial.
Posted by: kemibe | August 13, 2006 6:16 PM
Dammit, just realised I forgot to divide by 2 when calculating the thickness of the bronze thingummy. Actually it comes out to about 9.6cm, which is verging on being too small...
Posted by: Corkscrew | August 13, 2006 6:49 PM
Pi doesn't have to be 3.1415.... This only happens when space-time is flat.
There are TWO equally likely possibilities for the biblical value of pi:
1) The universe was created a few thousand years ago and has rapidly expanded to its current size. A moment or two after universal creation the value of pi was quite small due to the high curvature of space-time. The value of pi has rapidly increased to its current value as the universe has expanded. If one calculates the value of pi that would occur on a manifold whose curvature is consistent with that of our universe when the biblical statement was made, then one discovers that pi was actually 3. The fact that such an environment would not support chemistry as we know it is all explained away in my upcoming book "The Great Rationalizer".
2)The presence of God warps space-time. Since the passage occured in the bible, then God must have been present and it was His presence that caused the value of Pi to change. Such an observation is consistent with other events in the old testament like the burning bush since a heavily altered value of pi changes the activation energy for oxidation reactions.
See. It all fits together. Now isn't it easier to accept my alternatives then to doubt literal innerancy? I can add words with more prefixes if that will help...
Posted by: Peter | August 13, 2006 7:00 PM
I was always curious how a man could die on a Friday evening, and then rise three days later on Sunday morning. But then I realized that 2=3 is just an example of a miracle.
Now I find out that π=3 also. It appears that the number 3 behaves somewhat like ∞. But this is to be expected since the Trinity is the personification of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.
I think from now on, I will refrer to the trinity as π. "Hey look, I just found a π-leafed clover!"
Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 13, 2006 9:38 PM
"And the answer is one of the all-time greats of moronic innumeracy"
Or possibly one of the all-time great spoofs of moronic innumeracy. The author has several little rants, written with a spelling and grammar that can only be intentionally bad.
He's a bit more numerate than the average creationist. He's aware of that chestnut of a bonus question, the proof that -1 = 1, and he puts it to good use in an inspired "refine and solids proof" of the Trinity:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnptL3oeoKyFX_hsCZiJnSfsy6IX?qid=20060812160238AAL0XO0
Posted by: Billy | August 13, 2006 9:58 PM
We in the IT world like to call that the Pebkac error.
Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Monitor.
Or the all famour ID ten T error.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 14, 2006 12:40 AM
its between keyboard and chair
Posted by: hal900 | August 14, 2006 7:47 AM
Pythagerous wasn't born yet!! If God did give the info to Noah, then how would he explain the decimal system or pythagorous therom? It would be silly to try, so he gave it to noah in a language that made sense to him. And reality, 3 is close enough for what he was building, so who really cares. Just do me a favour, don't give up on science when you get out of highschool and find out that electrons don't spin around atoms like planets.
In attempting to disprove the bible, all you have done is prove that you are missing it's entire purpose. God didn't talk to the world to give them science (if he wrote pythag down before it was invented, we would all have to believe, and we would have zero requirement for faith), he came here only to offer people salvation. But I guess you'll figure that out on the flip side.
Posted by: Jumanous | August 14, 2006 7:50 AM
no need for special pleading here, it's very simple. how many significant figures in 30? one. same for 10. and what's pi to one significant figure? 3. it's fairly clear that this is an estimate. the problem lies not in the bible, but in ignorant biblical literalists.
Posted by: Raymond Pasco | August 14, 2006 8:04 AM
to Jumnanous
1) the point is to show "every statement in the bible is not literally true" which is a posistion held by all reasonable people of faith. If you do not see this then you have missed the entire point.
2) It does the bible great diservice to compare it to old theories and lies to children. If we finish your analogy, the orbital model of the atom is used because it is intuitive (we almost all understand the solar system) and for the purpose of simple chemestry it has rules that work for filling the shells. So, what you are saying with this analogy is that the bible is an old version and a stop gap. We will get the real version when we get older?
I seem to recall that they already tried this in Texas...
Posted by: a cornelian | August 14, 2006 8:29 AM
"Extorting anybody who believes that $1.99 = $1 can't be that hard!"
Hey $1.99 = $2 where I'm from, so why not? :p
Posted by: random | August 14, 2006 8:40 AM
...you divided by zero..
Posted by: wildbad | August 14, 2006 8:54 AM
No need for God to bend spacetime as our brave Canuckistani explained. Instead, pi being one of the fundamental constants like g, e and c, the fundie can just say "maybe the values of the so-called constants aren't really constant" :-)
Posted by: David Cantrell | August 14, 2006 9:03 AM
You've got to be kidding me - this is certainly the biggest brain fart I've ever seen.
Yes, all universal constants like the permeability of free space, planck's constant and the speed of light all have the potential to change with the expanding universe (time/space curve). And yes, a stronger gravitational fields would produce such pertubation to the figures, however...
The fact is, the world would be so overwhelmingly different under these conditions that no life would exist.
Perhaps its all true and somewhere along the lines these significant conditions also explain the substantial warp of the minds of those who ever actually believe that Pi=3!!!
Have fun trying to explain it - maybe god should get the next Noble Prize in Physics for the ability to significantly warp the space-time curve in order to quantify a sentence in a book...
Or maybe god should build me a time machine using this unique skill to perturb the space time curve so that I can go back in time and prove to them by first principles that Pi is not equal to 3 and people have more than 3 fingers (maybe thats all that they could count up to?)and then kick his *ss.
Just a thought...
Posted by: Loch | August 14, 2006 9:17 AM
A great writeup on Snopes about Alabama and pi=3. I always laugh when I read this one:
http://snopes2.com/religion/pi.htm
Posted by: phillydog | August 14, 2006 9:42 AM
The bible was written in terms that the people of the day could understand. Irrational numbers was not something people of that day could understand. Hence, the approximation. Furthermore, Kings was not the word of G-d (at least based on Jewish belief), it was divinley inspired
I wish people would not use the bible as a science book. It is a book of laws and morality, not MATH and definately not SCIENCE.
Dave
Posted by: Dave H | August 14, 2006 10:03 AM
There is no reason to conclude that the writers were guilty of serious error. Jeremiah, who wrote First Kings, and Ezra, who penned Second Chronicles, were reliable men who wrote these accounts under divine inspiration.
Today, in mathematical calculations, it is customary to use pi, which denotes the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. According to general practice, it is a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. However, in ancient times persons did not give decimals down to the last fraction. For that matter, pi itself is not just 3.1416. Persons who insist on scrupulous accuracy and consider the Bible to be in error in giving the measurements of the molten sea would do well to realize that, to be more accurate themselves, it would be appropriate to carry pi to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even a figure in excess of 3.1415926535 could be used.
Bible commentator Christopher Wordsworth quotes a certain Rennie, who made this interesting observation regarding the measurements of the molten sea: "Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semidiameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more."
According to 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, the molten sea was ten cubits, or fifteen feet, in diameter and it took a line of thirty cubits, or forty-five feet, to encompass it. That is a ratio of one to three, which, for practical purposes, was quite adequate for the sake of a record. Jeremiah and Ezra, therefore, gave approximate figures, which, of course, satisfy thoughtful Bible students.
Posted by: Ralph | August 14, 2006 10:03 AM
Now if only the relevant verse in 1 Kings was 7:22, which makes for an interesting ratio . . . . :-)
Posted by: Alexis | August 14, 2006 10:05 AM
Jumanous:
You might want to bother paying a bit of attention. I don't think there's anything wrong with a book like the bible using a crappy approximation of π; in fact, I wouldn't expect precise measurements in an ancient religious text.
What I found pathetic and worthy of mockery is the attempts by idiots who believe that the bible must be absolute perfect literal truth to insist that π *does* equal three, and all of us math folks are just too stupid to realize it.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 14, 2006 10:08 AM
π and G changing with time? Of course! Alan Sokal demonstrated that years ago in his ground-breaking essay, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 14, 2006 10:12 AM
Now if only the relevant verse in 1 Kings was 7:22, which makes for an interesting ratio . . . . :-)
Posted by: Alexis | August 14, 2006 10:13 AM
"the fundie can just say 'maybe the values of the so-called constants aren't really constant' :-)"
of course, maybe they aren't constant....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060711/sc_space/scientistsquestionnaturesfundamentallaws
Posted by: eikonktizo | August 14, 2006 10:54 AM
I think CrazyQat has the right idea (in a way),
Let's open up the Literalist Bank and pay depositors at the interest rate of π, but we only have to pay them pack at 3%.
We can skim the irrational interest off the top for ourselves. ;)
Cheers,
-Flex
Posted by: Flex | August 14, 2006 10:57 AM
Tremendous !
Posted by: allan | August 14, 2006 11:29 AM
"Dear god,
Don't know if you noticed,
But your name is on a lot of quotes in this book.
Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look"
etc.
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/x/xtc/dear+god_20147941.html
Posted by: Jim Frost | August 14, 2006 11:29 AM
Well what the hell. Why does anyone bother with this? Does anyone think the ancient Hebrews measured tiny fractions?
If God exists, would he bother trying to explain an irrational number to them? OF COURSE he'd round pi to 3.
Hell. I say, let's shuffle fundamentalists off to their own classes and TEACH them Pi=3, and fuck 'em. Let 'em try to build wheels and rockets and interact with the modern world with all of their stupid ideas. They'll quickly get out of the gene pool, where they're in too deep already.
Posted by: Em | August 14, 2006 12:04 PM
@PEBKAC:
"We in the IT world like to call that the Pebkac error.
Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Monitor."
It's an acronym. That means the words should start with the letters in the acronym.
Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.
Dave
Posted by: Dave Newton | August 14, 2006 12:31 PM
I think what's been overlooked is the fact that the individual who posted the orignial statement is a religiously oriented person and therefore entitled to his interpretation of those scriptures. Hell, I'm a pagan and I'll give that to them. I probably would not recieve the same treatment, but again that's his decision.
If he wishes to believe that pie=3 and the bible is completely and utterly correct, so be it. At least he's not forcing on people like the evangelical neoconservative christians would like to do. He's simply stating his perception of that reality.
Stopping the tyranny of christianity should be our goal, not the destruction of the religion itself. There is great deal of wisdom to be found in the pages of those books and while I find most of it to be arrogant and self-serving to a god who suffers from multiple personality disorder, paranoia and , it still holds many life lessons that can be prove benficial.
Posted by: shadowreign666 | August 14, 2006 1:00 PM
That the author of this blog was taken in by a rather obvious spoof, is priceless itself. (Should stick to math rather than textual analysis, no?)
I guess there is more than one way to be hyperliteralist. Not everyone on the Internet is a dog, you know.
Posted by: zoopy | August 14, 2006 1:01 PM
It's sad that some people are so ignorant as to believe that pi would equal 3, despite all evidence to the contrary. It's also sad that one would equate such biblical literalism and innumeracy with all Christianity or all Americans.
Christianity is a big religion, and America is a big country. Lots of people populate both groups, and there is a large percentage of cross-over. Sadly, the Christian Evangelical movement in America has dominated the debate. They also make for great fodder for those who have a bone to pick with either Americans or Christanity.
I do notice that the quote is taken from the Hebrew Scriptures (I Kings). Funny how no one is maligning the Jewish faith over this. You can find fundamentalists of that faith as well, after all. You could probably find an innumerate soul of that faith group who would actually take such a thing as "pi = 3" to be the truth. However, fundamentalists of other faiths don't tend to dominate the debate among most English speakers on the Internet.
I take that back. We do hear quite a bit about the messages of the Islamic fundamentalists these days.
I don't know that it's wise to dismiss all of any ideology over the words and actions of that ideology's fundamentalist radicals. Nor do I believe it to be fair to call all members of a group or nation "stupid" based on the thoughts and actions of a few loud voices.
Not all Christians are fundamentalists/evangelicals. It's insulting to insinuate that.
Are quite a few Americans innumerate? Yes. Are quite a few culturally illiterate? Yes. Is berating or mocking an entire group of people going to change things? Are you doing something constructive to create a change in this pattern? You, the owner of this blog, appear to be quite intelligent. You are thus given a gift by which you can improve those around you. How are you doing this, exactly, through posts that mock the weak-minded?
Well, I'm sure it drives your page views up.
Posted by: Duncan McPherson | August 14, 2006 1:07 PM
If someone says to me "the circumference is thirty", you think I should correct the person and say it is 31.416? And you believe the person will not punch me in the face? That's pretty funny.
Again, if the same person says that a bat is a bird, then I should say "So what if it has wings and flies--it's a mammal"? Again, I get punched in the face.
Stop doing math research in ancient religious texts! You need to get out and talk to real people. You need to know how to avoid getting punched in the face.
Posted by: Mr. Perspective | August 14, 2006 1:14 PM
The most obvious answer is rounding. The thing was 10 cubits wide and 30 cubits around. If I said my cicular swimming pool was about 10 feet across, and you asked its circumference, and I said "30 feet," then would you lambast me for not saying "Approximately thirty-one point four one five nine feet?"
It's just innocent rounding to the tens place in the Biblical text, people. Jeez. But believe whatever you want (true or not), as long as it justifies your lifestyle.
Posted by: Josh | August 14, 2006 1:16 PM
omfG!! this insanity is ... it's unbelivable.
the dude talks about geometric series.. and yet claims that a series, starting with 0.14.. is less than 0.14 omfg.
dear god, purge the stupid, I don't care about the heretics, but the idiots.. oh, please!
Posted by: PAStheLoD | August 14, 2006 1:22 PM
Hopefully you all understand how new fractions and even Pi really are. About 3500 BC man invented the wheel, and about 2000 BC he noticed that the diameter of a wheel was approximately 3 times its circumfrance. Pi as a fraction first appeared in the Roman empire about 250 BC. The concept of 0 really didn't spread to western culture until several hundred AD. It is disupted as to whether the Egyptians, Chinese or Romans first invented fractions but it is not disputed that the decimal point was first conceptualized about 1615 AD.
In any case, Hebrew--the original text of the old testement---and Kings in particular was written several thousand years before fractions were understood. Is it any surprise that they came up with a diameter of 10, and a circumfrance of 30 instead of a cicumfrance of 31.4159? The Bible is the inspired word of God, it is God's thoughts written by man.
In some cases God gave men visions of the future, but even in those cases the men wrote in the words and context of what they knew/understood and within the limitations of the language that existed at the time they wrote. It wouldn't make sense for God to give the Bible to a Hebrew in English or Russian languages that wouldn't exist for many years to come. If fractions didn't exist, and only crude forms of measurement existed, the men would have written without them. We don't consider Abraham Linconl a liar for saying 4 score and 7 years ago... instead of 4 score, 7 years ago, 62 days, 12 hours, 22 minutes, and 37.623410 seconds ago. Rounding has always been a tolerated form of writting information, particularly before more detailed forms of measurement existed.
Posted by: Tracy | August 14, 2006 1:42 PM
Chuck Missler claims it's a mis-translation of Hebrew:
http://www.ldolphin.org/pi/
Posted by: lajmon | August 14, 2006 1:46 PM
From the Wikipedia entry on Gematria:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gematria)
"One fascinating application of gematria is its use by exegetes to suggest that authors of certain biblical texts were keenly aware of specific mathematical principles and properties. For example, gematria has been employed to contend that the author of Kings, who according to traditionalists is Solomon, was aware of the approximate value of Pi. Ostensibly, a plain reading of 1 Kings 7:23 indicates that its author believed that 3, rather than 3.14159, is the value of Pi. This tentative conclusion arises from the fact that the verse describes the molten sea that was made in the Temple as being 10 cubits from brim to brim (diameter) and as being encircled completely by a line of 30 cubits (circumference). Since Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to the circle's diameter, it would seem that the author of Kings thought Pi had a value of 3, which makes no sense since even a rough measurement would show the difference (1.4 cubits is almost 2.7 feet).
However, gematria may be used to counter the argument that this verse is an example of biblical error. In Jewish tradition, words appearing in portions of the Books of the Prophets are occasionally read (Kri) differently than they are written (Ktiv). Some biblical scholars, such as Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague of the 16th Century (the Maharal of Prague), trace the provenance of the Kri/Ktiv dichotomy all the way back to the authors of the Books of the Prophets. In its written form (Ktiv), the verse uses the word KAVA (Kuf, Vav, Hey) for the molten sea's circumference. Yet, the word is read (Kri) as KAV (Kuf, Vav). The numerical value of KAVA is 111 (Kuf = 100, Vav = 6, Hey = 5), while the numerical value of KAV is 106 (Kuf = 100, Vav = 6). 111/106 = 1.047169. If 1.047169 (the value of the Kri divided by the Ktiv) is multiplied by 3 (the value that the author ostensibly attributes to Pi), the result is 3.14151, which closely approximates Pi. The Vilna Gaon, a Rabbinic luminary of the 18th Century known for a remarkable mathematical prowess, is often credited with the discovery of this gematria."
Sure, Gematria is a bunch of Bible Code nonsense, but it's kind of a neat here. "Pi is 3 times the ratio between the numerical value of 'circumferance' and how we intentionally misspelled it."
Posted by: Chew Tobacco Rag | August 14, 2006 2:19 PM
It's quite easy to poke fun at the Bible and Jews/Christians when you don't realize some things about Hebrew, and the fact that the translation into English causes some information to be inevitably lost.
Instead of restating, just read this article for an explanation of this apparent Pi inaccuracy:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/
Now, given this, should it be concluded that it's a pure coincidence that Pi is actually more accurate in the Hebrew text than was perhaps measurable at the time?
But then again, why try to understand the rationale when it's tons more fun to sit back lazily and poke fun...
Posted by: Matt | August 14, 2006 2:57 PM
Take-home lesson from Mr. Perspective, above: Often, stupid people are also violent.
Posted by: jackd | August 14, 2006 3:09 PM
Actually, I DO think that the ancient Hebrews measured things to "a tiny fraction". If they have ever built anything circular, then they measured things carefully, because otherwise, their buildings would fall down. Religion is great at comforting people, but when you want to build a hut, common sense is what you need.
Posted by: Bugmaster | August 14, 2006 3:45 PM
The explanation of pi = 3 is obvious. It's a miracle! Hallelujah, brothers! Praise the lord! :-D
By definition, god is omnippytent, which means he can do absolutely anything. Well, almost anything. For example, he can't create a rock that's too heavy for him to lift. ;-)
David
Posted by: David | August 14, 2006 4:06 PM
Matt:
Get a grip.
First of all, the point of this post isn't to argue about whether or not the bible is inerrant. Personally, I think that's a damned stupid argument. I mean, why would a book like the bible *need* to be any more accurate that a very rough estimate that gave people an *idea* of what it was talking about? Why would it need a precise value of π? It's just a stupid, pointless argument.
But the point of this post was *not* whether or not the bible uses a bad value for π. The point is the incredible ignorance and innumeracy of some jackass who believed that the *actual* value of π was exactly three because the bible said so, and strung together one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen using mathematical terminology.
Doesn't matter whether the bible is inerrant or not. The guy who made the argument that π=3 because π is the sum of an infinite series, and therefore it converges to 3.0; that guy's an *idiot*, regardless. He's an idiot of the bible actually includes a secret hidden code giving the precise real value of π; he's an idiot if the bible *doesn't* include any precise version of π.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 14, 2006 4:35 PM
I just want to point out how nerdy this. You guys are pathetic.
Posted by: Nerd Stomper | August 14, 2006 4:45 PM
Mark: I've got a great grip. Thanks.
I understand the original errant argument about 3.14 converging to 3. Yes, that's messed up. But the following comments on this page digressed from that. My response was pointing out that the Bible, per the original Hebrew text, is shown to actually have been quite accurate for its estimation of Pi. It's not a "secret code"...it's more like "lost in translation."
If folks were just discussing how Pi != 3, then that's one thing. But folks are saying the Bible wasn't accurate w.r.t. this passage, and that's false, if you go back to the Hebrew text. Hence, my post.
Posted by: Matt | August 14, 2006 4:53 PM
WOW!
I think, even it GOD could bend space and time, it wouldn't matter. Who reads the bible as a science book anyways? I believe anyone interested in an elegant proof of how Pi=3 should pick up a good real analysis book. Read it and weep you silly men who think Pi=3!!!!
Posted by: Ivan | August 14, 2006 5:07 PM
Mr. Perspective:
Sounds like you know some violent, stupid people. It's rather worrying that you seem to be saying they should be the ones to set the tone for any discussion.
Posted by: Morgan | August 14, 2006 5:36 PM
Matt:
The only problem with your argument is that the original hebrew text does no such thing. It's a post-facto rationalization superimposed on the flexibility of the hebrew language. The nature of hebrew as a language makes it particularly easy to play numeric games with, which is why there's more gematria done in hebrew than in other languages. But the linguistic reasoning for why that passage wasn't getting pi wrong is just plain nonsense: there's an alleged misspelling in the text, and if you take the ratio of the gematria value of the corrected spelling compared to the gematria value of the incorrect spelling, you get something close to pi; except of course, that the "correct" spelling makes no linguistic sense; it just happens to be the *right letters* to produce a good approximation of pi. In other words, it's a retrofit.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 14, 2006 5:53 PM
The common word for circumference is (qav) Here, however, the spelling of the word for circumference, (qaveh) adds a heh (h) as a conjunction for the masculine singular noun.)
In the Hebrew Bible, the scribes did not alter any text which they felt had been copied incorrectly. Rather, they noted in the margin what they thought the written text should be. The written variation is called a kethiv, and the marginal annotation is called the qere
To the ancient scribes, this was also regarded as a remez, a hint of something deeper. This appears to be the clue to treat the word as a mathematical formula.
Numerical Values
The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number.
The has a value of 100; the has a value of 6; thus, the normal spelling would yield a numerical value of 106. The addition of the with a value of 5, increases the numerical value to 111. This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/ 106, or 31.41509433962 cubits. Assuming that a cubit was 1.5 ft. (3) this 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet.
This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch! (This error is 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate that we were accustomed to using in school!) How did they accomplish this? This accuracy would seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation. How would they know this? How was it encoded into the text?
Posted by: Chad Hyatt | August 14, 2006 6:41 PM
Looks like that false-flag troll fooled you.
...idiot.
Posted by: namehere | August 14, 2006 7:16 PM
Advenced Mathematics FTW!
Posted by: geninstability | August 14, 2006 7:30 PM
You guys are the biggest nerds for delving this deeply into something so trivial. I bet most of you live with your moms and are over 18. I laugh at your stupidity.
Posted by: Francis | August 14, 2006 7:49 PM
pi = 3.0.
On its face, one could say that Christianity is "quaint". That it is ignorant. That is even a form of mental illness. But then, you come to realize that asshats like this elected a Christian, bible thumping, superstitious cretin to be president of the United States. Then, the terror really strikes home. There just might be more of them than there is is of us rational, reasonable, beings.
It's not funny at all. It is absolutely terrifying.
Posted by: Glo | August 14, 2006 8:29 PM
Some have suggested that there is one other explanation that fits all the dimensions given in the biblical text, if the circumference measured refers to the inside of the vessel. (This is a possibility, although, as already stated, it was most likely the external circumference which was measured.) The diameter was 10 cubits or 4.50 metres, the circumference was 30 cubits or 13.50 metres, and the walls were 'a hand breadth thick' (verse 26) or 10 centimetres (to the nearest centimetre). If the diameter of 4.50 metres was the outside measurement, we subtract 10 centimetres x 2 (to allow for the thickness of the wall on either side) to arrive at a figure of 4.30 metres for the internal diameter of the vessel, and we can now calculate the internal circumference using the formula:
circumference = diameter x p
= 4.3 metres x 3.14
= 13.50 metres
= 30 cubits
Posted by: Peter Holubz | August 14, 2006 10:19 PM
I haven't read all comments thoroughly so someone else might have already mentioned this. According to dictionary definitions a cubit is:
An ancient unit of linear measure, originally equal to the length of the forearm from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow, or about 17 to 22 inches (43 to 56 centimeters).
We ain't talking two decimal places here guys.
Posted by: RY | August 14, 2006 11:46 PM
You says "American" but I think that you want to say "people from USA". It is not the same. There is Canada, Central America and South America...
Most people in Canada, South an Central America do not believe that PI=3.
Most people in Canada, South and Central America believe that bats are mamals.
Posted by: flexarorion | August 15, 2006 2:14 AM
The ancients were smart enough to build pyramids but not to understand an "irrational number" ???
How dumb is that assertion?
"Look: your middle finger is longer than the width of three drachmas."
"No, no, it can't be ... impossible!"
Meanwhile in the background: levering blocks so finely cut that 4000 years later you can't get a knifeblade between them.
As for Archimedes: leave him out of it, you palimpsesting b*****s.
Posted by: TJ | August 15, 2006 3:59 AM
"You guys are the biggest nerds for delving this deeply into something so trivial."
That isn't what you say when you use some dumb quote from The Book to bludgeon someone, to ruin their lives, to incite people to harm or even kill them. Then it's "oh no, it's the literal Word of God. Pick up your stones."
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but if we all paid more attention to the NT, thing's be a whole lot better all around. 'Cause the OT is a flipping embarassment.
Posted by: TJ | August 15, 2006 4:04 AM
I think that most people here are missing the point. The author of the Biblical passage is very, very proud of the engineering marvel that stood in the Temple: a bowl made out of *cast bronze* that was *ten cubits across*. Ten cubits! Why, that's thirty cubits around!
I don't care whether the bowl was slightly elliptical (it almost certainly would have been), whether the figure was rounded off, or whether it was measured in a funny way. That's not the point. It was *ten cubits across*. And made of cast bronze!
Posted by: Joe in Australia | August 15, 2006 4:06 AM
Wow!
Mark, you seemed to have hit a nerve here. You write an innocuous post about a nutcase who thinks that infinite series always converge to zero, and uses that fallacious assumption to claim that the value of π is three. Which proves, in his twisted little mind, that the OT is innerrant.
And all of a sudden there are a horde of comments defending the OT.
Some which say, 'Just shut up!'
Some which say, 'The OT is fine, we shouldn't expect too much precision from the thing.'
Some which say, 'It's all a problem of translation.'
Some which say, 'No one knew about irrationals, therefore God didn't tell them!' (WTF?)
I know that this particular subject has probably become a sore spot for the literalists, because it seems to pop it's head up as a reason to laugh at the OT fairly often. (Which is not a bad thing.) But since this particular argument is not a very good one, it is rarely brought up as a serious problem with the OT.
Yet, give the apologist's even a whisper that you are saying the OT defined π as 3.0 and you get jumped on. Even though you were pointing out the idiocy of a nutter who actually is making that argument.
What a freaky world!
Mind, it may be that the nutter has simply fooled me. If so, then I'll enjoy a good laugh at my expense.
Cheers,
-Flex
Posted by: Flex | August 15, 2006 7:50 AM
Someone please come and slap me - my face has become stuck in a rictus of stunned confusion. A person that is able to use a computer and string words together into sentences actually wrote that "3.14... = 3.00 = 3"? There really is no hope.
Posted by: Mike | August 15, 2006 10:54 AM
Has it occurred to any of you that "Christian Warrior" is purely a joke and that the posted answers are all satire? I guess it did to zoopy, but the rest of you seem absurdly gullible
Posted by: John Baskette | August 15, 2006 1:08 PM
Or alternatively, just simplify everything to symbolise pi by pi=22/7, before applying any calculations that involve floating numbers.
Posted by: Keith | August 15, 2006 1:28 PM
I'm a Christian and happen to believe PI is an irrational number. It's funny how people claim the Bible has so many contradictions and doesn't follow math or science without giving any examples. Do a little studying and what, at face value, may seem to be a contradiction to the quick to judge is actually 100% accurate.
This article:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/
and, I'd expect, any Hebrew scholar can explain this "mathematical problem" in this passage clearly. If you don't want to click the link, here's the important part relating to the word used for circumference in the text:
"The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number.
The q has a value of 100; the v has a value of 6; thus, the normal spelling would yield a numerical value of 106. The addition of the h, with a value of 5, increases the numerical value to 111. This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/106, or 31.41509433962 cubits. Assuming that a cubit was 1.5 ft.,3 this 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet.
This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch! (This error is 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate that we were accustomed to using in school!)"
So before you mock God, find out what He really is saying.
"[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter." ~ Proverbs 25:2
Posted by: Tim | August 15, 2006 1:32 PM
Let me put it this way: I'm not good at math and I'm not a scientist. I'm a firm believer in God and I'm no fool. On top of that I travelled half-way across the world by internet to see for myself what a fellow blogger wrote. And it is true... PI = 3 if you want it to fit into a piece of poorly calculated bible..
I'm stunned...
Posted by: Jan H | August 15, 2006 1:43 PM
The poster is clearly a satirist if you look at his other posts on Yahoo Answers. The explanation is both too mathmaticallly informed (I'm going to assume most Christian Funamentalists don't know about geometric series) and too idiotic to be anything other than satire.
Posted by: HangLoose | August 15, 2006 3:06 PM
I suggest you read this article on The Value of Pi
by Chuck Missler
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/
Posted by: Darrin Mcleod | August 15, 2006 8:13 PM
Guys:
I've seen the "khouse" argument before. It's *not* convincing to me. It *does not* make linguistic sense. Basically, it claims that there's a mis-spelling in the hebrew of the bible, and that the ratio of the numeric value "corrected" spelling to the numeric value of the "incorrect" spelling is something close to the actual value of pi.
The problem is, the original word *isn't* misspelled; and the "correction" isn't correct. The "correction" is not what's linguistically correct; it's just something that was *selected* to make the ratio work.
Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 15, 2006 8:28 PM
Surely the actual problem is that there is no reason to think that the author of the passage had ever heard of pi, or that he thought the ratio of the circumference of a circle and its diameter is constant. People here keep saying that he got the value of pi wrong, but that assumes that he was trying to say something about it. I don't suppose the idea had occurred to him. By mentioning both the circumference and the diameter he was reinforcing his point: this is a very, very, very big bowl! And it's made from cast bronze!
Posted by: Joe in Australia | August 15, 2006 8:39 PM
Allright, we all all know pi does not equal 3. But the math from the bible thing, was it done in base ten? All I know is not all ancient civilizations did their math in base ten. So you might want to do the math one more time.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2006 7:18 PM
Joe in Australia - You miss the point again. Yes, we know that the bible guy didn't know pi! We can assume that he probably didn't care! The problem is that some people, right now, believe that pi = 3, because of this. That's what Mark's post was about.
Posted by: Xanthir | August 16, 2006 8:09 PM
I do not accept that anyone believes that pi=3. Look at what this guy said "Nobody still calculated the precise value of Pi. In future they will and apply advenced Mathematics to prove the value of Pi=3."
I put it to you that this guy doesn't know what pi is: he has simply been told that the Bible says pi=3. If you presented him with a circle and a piece of string he would be able to estimate the ratio of the circle's circumference to its diameter as being somewhere around 22/7. If you pushed him on the matter he would probably say that yes, *this* circle's ratio is greater than three - but the one in the Temple was different. That wouldn't mean that he believed pi=3, it just means that he doesn't understand geometric construction. If he knew what pi was and he genuinely believed pi=3 then he would have to believe that there is some mystical force that prevents the accurate measurement of circles. I can't imagine such a person actually existing.
Posted by: Joe in Australia | August 16, 2006 10:09 PM
Of course we are talking about a three-dimensional object, aren't we? Was it sloped? How thick was the thing? I don't know. Heck, I don't even care.
It is sad that a person insists that the Bible, as translated by the writers of the NKJV must be completely accurate considering that we have no idea what happened to the original writings that made up what we now call the Bible nor do we know anything about the translation process or what exactly went during the more than 45 centuries that it has been around.
But it's also sad that people post: How can a guy die on Friday night and be ressurected on Sunday morning, which is three days later. Had someone bothered to read the thing they'd realize that he'd been dead for some time and the Jewish people were concerned about him still hanging up there when the Sabbath came around.
It makes me sad that people criticize things they've never made a serious attempt to understand. Heck, to understand the thing you pretty much have to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic in order to read the entire thing in what we believe to be the original form.
No one's even sure exactly how big a cubit is, anyway. One person's cubit could be completely different from another person's cubit, just like my foot is different from your foot. It's only been relatively recently that we've gotten all these things standardized.
Posted by: Elias | August 18, 2006 2:22 PM
Ah...wha... eh...
Drat, my head just imploded. I hope you're happy.
Posted by: luna_the_cat | August 18, 2006 3:01 PM