Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Mike Cl]

So...basically this is who I'm communicating with:



*snaps fingers in hope of a reaction*
Nope, just a vacant stare.

You are not 'communicating' with anybody.  Communication happens when another party hears you and says something back that indicates he understood what you said.  Littlenipper has not done that.  He doesn't care what you say--he is lost in his own fictional world and cannot be communicated with.

[Baruch]

The Bible is meant to be heard, not read ... listen to at least GofJ 1:1 ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lb2HPeO00I

The beginning of the Gospel of John (actually by anonymous) is a chiastic poem, that is not identifiable as Christian vs Pagan.  It is preamble hymn borrowed from another Mystery religion like Pythagoreanism.  The word "logos" is a technical term from Greek philosophy, starting with the philosopher Heraclitus, but more general than the Pythagorean "arithmos".  It is similar in idea to the transcendental "dharma" of Mahayana Buddhism.  It also has antecedents in ancient Egyptian mythology and OT theology.  In Greek gnosticism, a personalized "logos" is not unlike "demiurge" ... a subordinate god, under the high mother goddess "sophia" ... like in Greek pagan mythology with Hephaestus under Zeus (who also goes under the name Dios).

[trdsf]

And I believe what the Creator reveals in His inerrant Word. I am happy to say that I'll experience an eternity with God were your story will be irrelevant.

Ah, yes.  The "inerrant" word that says pi is equal to exactly three, gives four conflicting and in some cases mutually exclusive accounts of what happened during the crucifixion story, and can't agree on Jeshua bar-Joseph's genealogy back to David, even though a) that's supposed to have been prophesied and b) only really matters if Joseph was bio-dad, not step-dad.

See, you can't just say that this book is the inerrant word of your god.  You can believe it, if you like, but you have no business whatsoever expecting us to have to believe it too.  That's a bit to big an ask to just take your word for it.  You need to demonstrate it, not assert it.

Lemme give you a good place to start; when you've cleared those up rather than pretending they don't exist and can make one logical whole out of a collection of disparate re- and mis-translated texts written twenty to twenty-five centuries ago by non-historians, which were then twisted to suit the political and philosophical needs of almost every major political figure in Western Europe since, let us know.

Otherwise, you're just preaching, and this is a non-prophet organization.

[LittleNipper]

Ah, yes.  The "inerrant" word that says pi is equal to exactly three, gives four conflicting and in some cases mutually exclusive accounts of what happened during the crucifixion story, and can't agree on Jeshua bar-Joseph's genealogy back to David, even though a) that's supposed to have been prophesied and b) only really matters if Joseph was bio-dad, not step-dad.

See, you can't just say that this book is the inerrant word of your god.  You can believe it, if you like, but you have no business whatsoever expecting us to have to believe it too.  That's a bit to big an ask to just take your word for it.  You need to demonstrate it, not assert it.

Lemme give you a good place to start; when you've cleared those up rather than pretending they don't exist and can make one logical whole out of a collection of disparate re- and mis-translated texts written twenty to twenty-five centuries ago by non-historians, which were then twisted to suit the political and philosophical needs of almost every major political figure in Western Europe since, let us know.

Otherwise, you're just preaching, and this is a non-prophet organization.

Let me give you a little food for thought. That the equation for that large bowl at the Temple is also presenting its thickness. I suppose you didn't see that coming... 

[trdsf]

Let me give you a little food for thought. That the equation for that large bowl at the Temple is also presenting its thickness. I suppose you didn't see that coming...

No it isn't.  It gives the diameter, and the perimeter, and the calculation is obvious.  And you have ignored everything else I said, and thought that I would be distracted by this nonsense that you created whole-cloth.

Try answering my points rather than going HEY LOOK OVER THERE! and hoping no one notices you ducking and running.

[LittleNipper]

No it isn't.  It gives the diameter, and the perimeter, and the calculation is obvious.  And you have ignored everything else I said, and thought that I would be distracted by this nonsense that you created whole-cloth.

Try answering my points rather than going HEY LOOK OVER THERE! and hoping no one notices you ducking and running.

Try being less demanding and more inquisitive.

The "Jewish" or "Bible" Value of "pi"


Do the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim (sections of Jewish scripture, comprising parts of the Christian "Old Testament") really say that the value of pi is three? Not actually but, due to the social pressures to look down on all things Judeo-Christian and the perverse joy certain people get out of tormenting others, I keep receiving queries on this issue. Before we do the calculations to put this old chestnut to rest, let's lay a little groundwork.

The Quote

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." â€" First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

There is a similar description in Second Chronicles 4, verses 2 through 5.

Hiram and the Phoenicians

The Phoenicians lived in what is now Lebanon. They were the creators of "royal purple", made by boiling a particular sea snail. While they did not invent glass, they did invent glass-blowing. They invented the first alphabet, from which we derive our own Latin alphabet. And they were skilled builders and artisans who exported their talents along with their legendary wood products, the fabled "cedars of Lebanon".

Hiram was the Phoenician artisan recorded as having been hired by King Solomon to design and supervise the building of the Jewish temple. The huge bowl (or "sea") at issue was used within the temple.

The Measurements

The text refers to dimensions measured in "cubits" and "handbreadths". Back in those days, measurements were not standardized as they are now. People used seat-of-the-pants measurements. Have you ever estimated the length of a bookcase by seeing how long it was compared to your outstretched arms? And then walked over to the spot where you wanted to move the bookcase, and stood against the wall, making sure that the length you'd just measured against your own body would fit in the open space? If so, then you have used "measurements" similar to those that ancient civilizations used.

The cubit was the length from the elbow to the tip of the outstretched fingers. It is commonly "standardized" today as being about eighteen inches (or about forty-six centimeters). To measure the length of a desk, say, in cubits, you would put your elbow at one end of the desk, with your hand outstretched toward the other end of the desk. Put the index finger of your other hand on the desk where your outstretched fingertips end, to mark the end of that cubit. Then move your cubit-arm over your index finger (which is marking the first cubit) so your elbow is now at your index finger, with your outstretched fingers still aiming at the other end of the desk. This measures "two cubits". Continue laying out cubits until you run out of desk, counting as you go. My desk, being seventy-two inches long, comes out to being about four and a half cubits long, as measured by my forearm.

A handsbreadth is the "hand" used to measure horses. It is the width of the palm of the person doing the measuring, and is "standardized" as being four inches (or about ten centimeters). To measure the height of the desk, start at the floor. Open your left hand with your palm facing you and your thumb up in the air (so it's out of the way). Rest your hand on the floor, with the back of your open hand against the desk, your palm still facing you, and your "pinkie" finger on the floor. Now open your right hand (again sticking your thumb up in the air so it's out of the way), and rest it on top of your left hand (so your right "pinkie" finger is across the top of your left index finger). This measures "two hands". Continue alternating hands up the side of your desk, counting as you go. My desk, being thirty inches tall, comes out to being about eleven handbreadths, as measured by my skinny little hands.

Since cubits and handbreadths are measured against a person's body, and since bodies vary, actual measurements (as opposed to "standardized" measurements) will vary from person to person. Your desk might be thirty inches tall, just like mine, but you might have bigger hands, so you might get a body-measure of only ten handbreadths. This variation is normal. Since we have no idea what Hiram's body measurements were, we'll have to approximate by using the standardized values for cubits and handbreadths.

Some Reasonable Assumptions

If this discussion of a "sea", or large bowl, had been referring to what is called an "ideal" bowl (a mathematical object, not existing in a physical sense, and having no thickness that could be felt or handled), then the text would indeed be claiming that the value of pi is three. But the text is referring to a real-world physical object, having the thick sidewalls necessary to support its own weight.

Now that you know how to measure cubits, can you see that it would be rather difficult to measure the curved surface of a bowl in cubits? Instead, a straightened rope would be used to measure the length. The rope would then have been moved to outline a circle with the desired circumference. Also, Hiram would not have just tossed some brass in the furnace and waited to see what came out. He would have designed the piece and would have given his workmen instructions.

To make a "sea" like this would likely have required a mold. The outer mold would have one dimension, and the inner mold would have another. Hiram would have given his workmen instructions regarding these measurements.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Phoenicians, being the renowned craftsmen that they were, had discovered a "rule of thumb"? Perhaps something along the lines of, "If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight"? When Egyptians and Babylonians came up with rules of thumb or accidentally discovered formulae like this, we credit them with being clever. Can't we do the same for the Phoenicians, even if they did occasionally â€" gasp! â€" cooperate with Jews?

Now that you have some background information, let's look at the actual numbers:


The Calculations

Here again is the quote being referred to:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." â€" First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26



The bowl is said to have had a circumference of thirty cubits and a diameter of ten cubits. The diameter is said to be "from one rim to the other", so this would be the outer diameter; that is, the diameter of the outer mold used to make the bowl.



The outer diameter, from rim to rim, was ten cubits.


The circumference is not specified as being the inner or outer circumference, but since using the outer circumference would give us the "ideal" bowl (with no width or thickness), let's instead use the inner circumference, which also, reasonably, would have been the circumference of the mold used to form the inside of the bowl. That is, we will use the two measurements which were necessary for the casting of the piece.   Copyright © Elizabeth Stapel 2002-2011 All Rights Reserved

Using eighteen inches for one cubit, we have the following:

outer diameter: 10 cubits, or 180 inches
outer radius: 5 cubits, or 90 inches
inner circumference: 30 cubits, or 540 inches



To find the "Jewish" or "Bible" value for pi, we need to have the inner radius. Once we have that value, we can plug it into the formula for the circumference and compare with the given circumference value of 540 inches.

Since the thickness of the bowl is given as one handsbreadth, then the inner radius must be:

90 â€" 4 = 86 inches

Let's do the calculations:

inner radius:  86 inches
inner circumference:  540 inches





The inner radius and the inner circumference.


The circumference formula is C = 2(pi)r, which gives us:

540 = 2(pi)(86)
540 = 172(pi)

Solving, we get pi =  540/172  =  135/43   = 3.1395348837..., or about 3.14.

Um... Isn't "3.14" the approximation we all use for pi? Perhaps those Phoenicians were fairly accurate after all.

Top  |  Return to Index


Cite this article as:

Stapel, Elizabeth. "The 'Jewish' or 'Bible' Value of 'pi'." Purplemath. Available from
     http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm. Accessed 13 March 2016

[josephpalazzo]

Please see:http://www.jewishpathways.com/jewish-history/jews-and-founding-america

So the author of your article quotes another author of another book who wrote:

At the time of the American Revolution, the interest in the knowledge of Hebrew was so widespread as to allow the circulation of the story that "certain members of Congress proposed that the use of English be formally prohibited in the United States, and Hebrew substituted for it."

According to you, hearsay from another hearsay = evidence. Yeah, I see why you're so gullible. Sure, there were Jews who followed the other Europeans to colonize the "new" world, and some of them had illustrious careers, but that is a far fetch jump to believe that "If Benjamin Franklin had his way, Hebrew would have become the national language." So far, you have failed in showing any evidence that any god exists, and you've also failed to support another crackpot theory of yours, that Benjamin would have instituted Hebrew as the national language of the USA. But I have to tell you're consistent... in being a failure...LOL.

[Hakurei Reimu]

The Measurements

The text refers to dimensions measured in "cubits" and "handbreadths". Back in those days, measurements were not standardized as they are now. People used seat-of-the-pants measurements.

Irrelevant. As long as they used the same hand/arm/whatever for measuring off the diameter and the circumference, there should have been about one and a half more whatever no matter what they used as a measure.

Have you ever estimated the length of a bookcase by seeing how long it was compared to your outstretched arms? And then walked over to the spot where you wanted to move the bookcase, and stood against the wall, making sure that the length you'd just measured against your own body would fit in the open space? If so, then you have used "measurements" similar to those that ancient civilizations used.

Ancient peoples knew about rope. And about marked-off straightedges.

<snip shit about standardized body measures>

Again, it doesn't matter whose hand/arm/whatever was used to measure out the measurements, pi is going to have the same ratio.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Phoenicians, being the renowned craftsmen that they were, had discovered a "rule of thumb"? Perhaps something along the lines of, "If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight"?

Pure conjecture.

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." â€" First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

Hmmm... now that's a particular phrase: "compass it round about." Let's take a look at "compass" used as a verb:

10.
to go or move round; make the circuit of:
It would take a week to compass his property on foot.
11.
to extend or stretch around; hem in; surround; encircle:
An old stone wall compasses their property.
12.
to attain or achieve; accomplish; obtain.
13.
to contrive; plot; scheme:
to compass a treacherous plan.
14.
to make curved or circular.
15.
to comprehend; to grasp, as with the mind:
His mind could not compass the extent of the disaster.

Meanings 12-15 seem irrelevant. Meanings 10 and 11 seem to indicate that one moves around the sea/cauldron on foot, or stretch a cord along the lip. Stretching a cord around the lip to measure circumference would be the most obvious measurement to make in terms of expressing how big it is. Furthermore, other versions of the bible makes it clear that this is an after-the-fact measurement, not a specification of a plan of the inner diameter as claimed. In short, this is an outer circumference, not an inner one as claimed.

The outer diameter, from rim to rim, was ten cubits.

Yep. And the outer diameter should be 31 and about a half cubits. And this is the one we were given, not your "inner circumference" baloney.

[The Atheist]

One of the best arguments for an early date of the synoptic gospels is the fact that the Pharisees and Saduccees are portrayed in a palpable way as oppressors of Jesus. Matthew/Mark/Luke were most likely written for communities still facing persecution by these Jewish religious leaders, which may be why their authors focused so much on Jesus one-upping them at every turn. The religious leaders were very powerful until the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70, which may explain why John's gospel (written circa 90-110) hardly mentions them.

[Baruch]

One of the best arguments for an early date of the synoptic gospels is the fact that the Pharisees and Saduccees are portrayed in a palpable way as oppressors of Jesus. Matthew/Mark/Luke were most likely written for communities still facing persecution by these Jewish religious leaders, which may be why their authors focused so much on Jesus one-upping them at every turn. The religious leaders were very powerful until the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70, which may explain why John's gospel (written circa 90-110) hardly mentions them.

Maybe ... but Jewish authorities oppressed Messianic Jews all the way until the end of the Bar Kochba war in 135 CE.  And any description could be retrospective ... this matches the survival of substantial Gospel books we have, around 200 CE.

None of that makes Hellenistic novellas into history.  And the Johannine material in particular, is more miraculous in content and less Jewish than say the Gospel of Matthew.  The theology of the Gospel of John is closest to the genuine letters of Paul, who was the first NT writer.

[trdsf]

Thank you, you have just destroyed your own claim that the bible is inerrant.

If it's inerrant, you don't get to engage in interpretation, you have to take what it says.  You don't get to make assumptions about Phoenician potters and rim widths.  You're stuck with the words on the page.  As soon as you start talking about what it "really meant", you have admitted that the text is not inerrant since you need to refer to non-textual assumptions.

Your copied text doesn't even try to hide behind the fig leaf of not having original source material and dealing with translations, and I quite frankly doubt that you can explain it in your own words, much less perform the calculations therein.  It was just the first thing you grabbed after googling for the appropriate biblical apologetics.

I mean, really, just claiming that "god can make a circle with a circumference to diameter ratio of 3" would have been more intellectually honest.  It would still have been wrong, but it would have been more honest.

Any luck with the four conflicting reports on what happened during the crucifixion, or the simple fact that if Joseph was descended from King David and Jeshua 'bar-Joseph' wasn't actually his son but your god's then Jeshua wasn't descended from David as prophesied?

[LittleNipper]

Thank you, you have just destroyed your own claim that the bible is inerrant.

If it's inerrant, you don't get to engage in interpretation, you have to take what it says.  You don't get to make assumptions about Phoenician potters and rim widths.  You're stuck with the words on the page.  As soon as you start talking about what it "really meant", you have admitted that the text is not inerrant since you need to refer to non-textual assumptions.

This is the most ridiculous thing anyone could believe. There is no problem with trying to understand that the Bible is inerrant using outside information anymore then trying to prove Jesus existed researching old historical documents that are otherwise secular /unbiblical. I already gave an explanation as to why Jesus only need the bloodline of Mary and how the Old Testament even supports such a rightful claim. However, it is interesting to realize that Jesus was related to David both through a direct blood line and through adoption. The same holds true with the early Christians. There were those who had a direct bloodline back to Jacob and then there were gentiles who were adopted into the fold.

No one is making assumptions. One simply needs to know that a bowl was fabricated. If I was to tell you that the bowl was somewhat elliptical, you would still not accept the information. Some simply do not want God to exist and yet will badger those that do, because it makes them feel somehow secure concerning their life choices.

[Sargon The Grape]

There is no problem with trying to understand that the Bible is inerrant using outside information anymore then trying to prove Jesus existed researching old historical documents that are otherwise secular/unbiblical.

To paraphrase AronRa:

Any document written or inspired by a supreme being would contain knowledge and wisdom so profound that no rational human being could deny the value of its contents. This text would not be subject to different interpretations, as any interpretation could only detract from the document's profundity. It would also be 100% consistent with all scientific observation, requiring no faith to believe its contents. There would therefore be no religion based on this document since its validity would be so painfully obvious that no cult following would be necessary to promote it.

[Baruch]

This is the most ridiculous thing anyone could believe. There is no problem with trying to understand that the Bible is inerrant using outside information anymore then trying to prove Jesus existed researching old historical documents that are otherwise secular /unbiblical. I already gave an explanation as to why Jesus only need the bloodline of Mary and how the Old Testament even supports such a rightful claim. However, it is interesting to realize that Jesus was related to David both through a direct blood line and through adoption. The same holds true with the early Christians. There were those who had a direct bloodline back to Jacob and then there were gentiles who were adopted into the fold.

No one is making assumptions. One simply needs to know that a bowl was fabricated. If I was to tell you that the bowl was somewhat elliptical, you would still not accept the information. Some simply do not want God to exist and yet will badger those that do, because it makes them feel somehow secure concerning their life choices.

You have to use a dictionary (in whatever language you speak) to read the Bible ... and any such dictionary is unbiblical.  There is no way to avoid this, even if one reads Hebrew and Greek.  And interpretation comes at least thru that dictionary, if not from the deconstruction of the text by the reader.

[widdershins]

I'm just going to assume that's a "You are correct" on LittleNipper's inability to refute anything I said, with a side of "AND you've just shown me that the Bible is, indeed, a book of magic in which pretty much the entirety of the Old Testament contains nothing but horrible patterns to live by and I was only thinking of specific, feel-good parts of the New Testament, a very small portion of the whole work, which are actually wise patterns to live by."

And all this time I thought you were simply obstinate and ignorant by choice, simply choosing to ignore anything you couldn't refute and pretend it didn't exist.  Boy did you prove me wrong.

I'll leave you with a couple of inspirational and thought provoking quotes.  You may want to look into the author to see if his works are a "wise pattern to live by" as well.  He did, after all, believe in God.

"Anyone can deal with victory.  Only the mighty can bear defeat."

"If freedom is short of weapons, we must compensate with willpower."

"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?"