Re: Solomon's 'molten sea' revisited

From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 16:42:21 EDT

Hi David,

Sorry to be a little late coming in on this, but I think Wayne has put his
finger on the probable explanation. The circumference of the convex core of
the mould would lend itself to accurate measurement by the method you
suggest. However, it would first have been necessary to calculate its radius
(4.77 cubits); and this would have required a working knowledge of pi.
Bearing in mind the size of the finished structure, it is highly likely that
it was cast as a number of equal segments.

Vernon

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Bowman" <David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 2:39 AM
Subject: Re: Solomon's 'molten sea' revisited

> At the risk of demonstrating a lack of a life on my part I want to ask
> Vernon a question concerning his interpretation of the 1 Ki 7:23-26
> passage about the brazen sea. Vernon wrote:
>
> > ...
> >"1Kings 7:26 informs us that the wall thickness of Solomon's 'brazen
> >sea' was 'an handbreadth' - and we are immediately reminded that a
> >real cylinder has an inner diameter (d, say) and an outer diameter
> >(D, say); an inner circumference (c, say) and an outer circumference
> >(C, say). It must follow that 1Kings 7:23 is inherently ambiguous, for
> >the '10 cubits from one brim to the other' and the 'line of 30
> cubits...
> >round about' are unqualified. Your correspondent has assumed c = 30
> >and d = 10, so that the ratio, c/d = pi = 3 (or, alternatively, C = 30
> >and D = 10; with an identical conclusion). But what if the writer's
> >intention had been c = 30 and D = 10?
> > ...
>
> Vernon, how do you suppose that the craftsmen who built or at least
> measured this object could successfully wrap a measuring line of 30
> cubits around the *inner* circumference of the sea? Do you imagine
> that they carefully glued it in place so it would not slide down to the
> inner bottom of the bowl? I think it is pretty clear that the measuring
> line would have to have been measured around the outer circumference of
> the sea so it could be pulled taut to get any kind of decent measurement
> at all.
>
> David Bowman
>
>
Received on Mon May 3 16:43:27 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 03 2004 - 16:43:28 EDT