Comments on: What were the dimensions of Solomon’s cast sea? http://www.errancy.com/dimensions-of-the-cast-sea/ Does the Bible contain contradictions or errors? Biblical inerrancy examined. Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:23:00 +0200 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: WisdomLover http://www.errancy.com/dimensions-of-the-cast-sea/comment-page-1/#comment-136 WisdomLover Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:47:02 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=38#comment-136 I feel the 'outerness' of "encircle" as well. But I also find it very compelling that you get such a precise result if you assume that the 30 cubits is an inner circumference. I wonder whether the original Hebrew has the same 'outer' feel as the "encircle" of the NRSV or the "compass it round about" of the KJV, or if it's more neutral like the "circumference" of the NASB. (On the other hand, I'm so happy with your original suggestion that I'm probably not going to do a lot more research on this one.) I feel the ‘outerness’ of “encircle” as well. But I also find it very compelling that you get such a precise result if you assume that the 30 cubits is an inner circumference. I wonder whether the original Hebrew has the same ‘outer’ feel as the “encircle” of the NRSV or the “compass it round about” of the KJV, or if it’s more neutral like the “circumference” of the NASB. (On the other hand, I’m so happy with your original suggestion that I’m probably not going to do a lot more research on this one.)

]]> By: Errancy http://www.errancy.com/dimensions-of-the-cast-sea/comment-page-1/#comment-135 Errancy Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:43:20 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=38#comment-135 I'm perfectly happy with the response that the numbers are only approximate too. My concern with the outer diameter / inner circumference response is that in the description of the circumference ("a line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely"), "encircle" suggests to me that the line is outside the brim, but that may be a translation issue. I’m perfectly happy with the response that the numbers are only approximate too.

My concern with the outer diameter / inner circumference response is that in the description of the circumference (“a line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely”), “encircle” suggests to me that the line is outside the brim, but that may be a translation issue.

]]> By: WisdomLover http://www.errancy.com/dimensions-of-the-cast-sea/comment-page-1/#comment-121 WisdomLover Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:53:02 +0000 http://www.errancy.com/?p=38#comment-121 I'm perfectly happy with the explanation that 31.4 is about equal to 30. In the end, all figures are approximate, even for particle physicists. But if the difference of 1.4 cubits bothers anyone: If we assume that the circumference given, 30 cubits, is the _inner_ circumference of the sea, then the inner diameter of the sea would be about 9.55 cubits, or about 172 inches. If the thickness of the brim is a handbreadth (per I Kings 7:26 and II Chronicles 4:5), or about 4 inches, then we have to add 8 inches to the inner diameter to get the _outer_ diameter (and it is the outer diameter that the passages above describe). That means that the diameter from brim-to-brim is 180 inches, or about ten cubits, just as the text says. I’m perfectly happy with the explanation that 31.4 is about equal to 30. In the end, all figures are approximate, even for particle physicists.

But if the difference of 1.4 cubits bothers anyone:

If we assume that the circumference given, 30 cubits, is the _inner_ circumference of the sea, then the inner diameter of the sea would be about 9.55 cubits, or about 172 inches. If the thickness of the brim is a handbreadth (per I Kings 7:26 and II Chronicles 4:5), or about 4 inches, then we have to add 8 inches to the inner diameter to get the _outer_ diameter (and it is the outer diameter that the passages above describe). That means that the diameter from brim-to-brim is 180 inches, or about ten cubits, just as the text says.

]]>