>>This false argument has been around for decades.
It is a false argument. I was wrong to advance it. I don't remember
where I came across it, probably in college. But to give
myself and the Bible credit, "3" is one possible, not
incorrect, estimate of pi. There are merely more precise
estimates that were around 1000s of years earlier.
The argument is false because the Bible was most probably merely
stating a rule of thumb, not a mathematical truth of the type
the Babylonians were striving for earlier.
However, that merely serves to point out the limitations
of the Bible itself. Don't overinterperet its instructions as
an engineering manual! Wheel fall down then.
* * * * Also, from
the theology of "what if": why would God provide in the
Bible a lazy hint at the value of one of His most wondrous
creations, the self-consistent, innumerable ground of
geometry? The God I believe in is defined by William
Blake's drawing of a Geometer with a mighty Compass.
That's not humanly consistent with the poor value in the
Bible.
Plimer, whom I presume is modern, has no excuse for this:
>> All school children know that pi is not 3 but 3.14159
but he does point out a Biblical reference that has gone
unmentioned so far, which was my original question....
>>II Chronicles 4:2
>>pi is an irrational number
More strongly, transcendental,
>>1) There is no evidence (at least that I am aware of) that complex
>>fractions and decimals (let alone pi) were known to the ancient
>>Hebrews of ca. 1,000 BC, which is when this took place. With the
>>limited mathematics they had then, ratio of the circumference to the
>>diameter of a circle would have to be expressed in whole numbers.
I question this, particularly the last sentence. Geometry and
number are, in the case of pi, incommensurate. That means
they don't measure the same and never will. All you need to
define pi better is simple fractions, anyway, tools I hope the
Hebrew authors had.
Plimer is right when he implies that
technology, even the low-tech of a cart-wheel, requires a better
assessment of circularity than pi equals 3. Even if that assessment
has not been put into words or number.
>>Indeed, it was only in the 3rd Century BC that Archimedes (287-
>>212 bc), worked out the approximate value of pi:
The Babylonians had a better estimate than the Bible 1000s of
years before. Their basic method of assessment
was the same as Archimedes', i.e. the proto-calculus notion of
finding area by dividing it into an arbitrarily large number of smaller,
equal, areas. Pi slices!
>The ancient Hebrews of 1,000 BC were an agrarian people with
>limited technology and they had to import craftsmen from other
>nations to build the temple that this verse refers to. The context
>indicates that the builder of the dish was one "Huram" of "Tyre "a
>craftsman in bronze....highly skilled and experienced in all kinds of
>bronze work." (1Kings 7:13-14).
I knew the Knights Templar were mixed up in this!!
>2) Pi is an irrational number, so whatever measurement used would
>be an approximation:
Pi does not come from the world of number.
It is a geometrical relationship.
That, in my opinion, is its transcendental beauty.
>It is therefore both unreasonable and lacking in historical insight for
>critics to argue that the Bible teaches that pi = 3, and therefore it is
>not infallible, and therefore it is not from God. If the Bible actually
>had a statement that pi = 3 then they would have a case. But it
>doesn't and they don't.
I agree. But see my theological "argument" above. It just seems
cruel and capricious of God not to provide more of the truth about pi,
especially since the Hebrew text is supposed to be uniquely inspired.
That's not an argument, that's just the way I feel about that particular
passage, since I believe in a Geometer (Cosmometer?) God.
Sincerely,
Brendan Frost