One example of a "scientific error" in the Bible which pops up again and again is found in I Kings 7:23 and the parallel passage in II Chronicles 4:2-5, and it involves the dimensions of a 12,000 gallon vat. It was said to be 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. [cubit = 18"] The argument goes that the supposedly inerrant Bible erroneously thought that the value of pi was 3 since, of course c = pi x d. I have to admit that I couldn't come up with a single way to answer this criticism, so I came up with thirteen of them instead. Take your pick.
Ignorance or error? If atheists are just criticizing the ignorance of the Bible for not knowing this mathematical relationship at all, then why not criticize it for not knowing that E = mc2. And we could just as well criticize today's scientists for their ignorance regarding a host of unsolved phenomena in nature. Ignorance is not at all the same thing as out-and-out error. One example of an out-and-out error would be atheists claiming that this is a scientific issue at all instead of a purely mathematical one. Thes criticism is based on the idea that the Bible actually knew that there was a mathematical relationship between the circumference and diameter but mistakenly felt that that ratio was 3 instead of pi. Even assuming that the Jews were trying to express a mathematical relationship, on-line references today will almost always list pi as 3.14, which is just as wrong as calling it 3 since pi is an irrational number which can't be expressed as the ratio of two whole numbers.
Next, let's look at how numbers are expressed in different contexts in the Bible. Numbers such as 3, 7, 10, and 12 are often used for their symbolic meanings rather than their literal ones. In a number of passages, 3 stands for God and 10 for completeness or perfection. These two numbers are thus very appropriate to express the symbolism of the basin. “The molten sea was a large metal basin representing the forces of primeval watery chaos subdued and brought to order by the LORD.” (NRSV Study Bible)
Even when no symbolic numbers are involved, the Bible rounds off figures quite often. For example, in Numbers 1:20-46, each tribe's population is rounded off to the nearest 50. And, of course, the time periods of 40 and 70 years appear much more often in the Bible than would be expected. Also, even if the Jews knew that the numbers they expressed were not exactly correct to several decimal places, the Hebrew language had no way of expressing fractions below 1/5, because they had no reason to be any more precise than that in their daily life.
Well, if we are forced to consider this as a scientific question, how do scientists express numbers? According to scientific notation, trailing zeroes in a number are not counted as significant figures. And in carrying out experiments, the answer to a calculation cannot be expressed using more than the same number of significant figures that were in the measured variables. So, for example, if the diameter was measured and the circumference then calculated, even the answer 31 would be in error since it exceeds the one significant figure given for the diameter. Alternatively, if the circumference is measured as 30 cubits, then that also contains only one significant figure so even the rough calculated value of 9.6 for the diameter would be considered as exceeding the precision possible. This is a common mistake I have encountered in judging high school science fairs.
However, all of this is really beside the point since the fact is that this biblical passage doesn't even attempt to make a mathematical statement at all, and that is easy to prove. If they had known that C=pi(d), whatever value they happened to assign to pi, then they wouldn't have needed to list both the circumference and diameter, since either one of the two would have sufficed. These are obviously the actual measured dimensions of a real object, not their calculated values at all. But the counter-argument is that they couldn't have possibly been that far off in their measurements. Depending on which value was measured and which one calculated, the error in measurement would have amounted to about 2 feet in the case of the circumference and 7 inches for the diameter.
In this regard, note a few things. This basin or bowl had a brim, which according to verse 26 was a handbreadth thick. In measuring a diameter, you will get completely different results depending on whether you are measuring the inside diameter, the outside diameter, or chose to split the difference.
On the other hand, in measuring a circumference with a string or rope (probably calibrated with marks or knots), one most naturally goes just under the lip, assuming that you don't slip down a bit further on the basin to get an even lower number, or you might even measure the circumference where it is the easiest, at its base instead. And wherever you choose to measure the circumference, you will be inadvertently adding twice the width of the rope to the apparent diameter of the bowl.
In addition, it is probably a poor assumption to think that any ancient object was exactly circular in shape. Just the slightest bit out of round will affect the apparent diameter depending on where you measure it but will not affect the circumference. Lastly, the length of the circumference isn't actually stated in the text. It merely says that a 30-cubit rope (probably with a little additional rope on each end to serve as hand holds) was needed to encircle it completely (that is made clear in most translations). Thus, all the text is stating is that a 20-cubit rope wasn't big enough and a 40-cubit rope would have been overkill.
So much for defense. Now let's go on the offensive with some reasoning that you may choose to accept or reject. This final approach comes from an understanding of two technical terms ketiv-qere and gematria. The first is a Hebrew term describing a type of notation used by the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who were responsible for preserving the text of the OT for at least 1,000 years. In several places in the OT where there was a possible misspelling in the text, they would put an appropriate note in the margin indicating that even though the word should be written one way, it should be pronounced another way. One such notation appears in the I Kings text for the word translated “circumference.”
Masoretic Notations
Ketiv = what is written (consonants in the text)
Qere = what is read (consonants in the margin)
Ellis R. Brotzman and Eric J. Tully,
Old Testament Textual Criticism, pp. 101, 228
The second technical term is a Greek one, gematria, which is a technique based on the fact that the letters in the Hebrew alphabet can also serve as numbers (like Roman numerals). The 18th century Talmudic scholar Rabbi Eliyahu, the Gaon (pride or genius) of Vilna (the capital of Lithuania), used gematria to analyze this particular text. The word for circumference according to the marginal notation is to be pronounced as kuf vav, which has the numerical value of 106 while the actual written wording is kuf vav heh, which has a numerical value of 111. So, the rabbi reasoned that the actual circumference is 30 cubits times the written value/pronounced value = 30 x 111/106 = 31.415, yielding a value of pi which was not exceeded in accuracy for another 1400 years by a Chinese mathematician.
Babylonian tablet (1900-1680 BC) = 3.125
Rhind Papyrus in Egypt (1650 BC) = 3.1605
I Kings 7:23 (950 BC) = 3.1415
Archimedes (287-212 BC) = between 3.1408 and 3.1429
Zu Chongzhi (429-501 AD) = 3.14159
(Dictionary of Christianity and Science, p. 516)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments