Talk:Molten Sea

Dimensions seem incorrect
"The Molten Sea or Brazen Sea was a large basin in the Temple in Jerusalem made by Solomon for ablution of the priests. It is described in 1 Kings 7 and 2 Chronicles 4. It stood in the south-eastern corner of the inner court. According to the Bible it was 5 cubits high, 10 in diameter from brim to brim, and 30 in circumference."

This can't be right. Why the switch from cubits to inches? 10 inches in diameter wouldn't be all that big. I'm going to change the inch figures to cubit.Reaster (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, while editing, I saw the intention of the original author. I decided to add "cubits" anyway for the sake of clarity.  Reaster (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Value for Pi
On the face of it a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30 gives a value for Pi as 3. The question is; what was the thickness of the vessel? for only by adjusting for the measurements to be for different sides of the brim can this be accounted for. Streona (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

the sides were perfectly vertical
The sea was 10 cubits across and 5 cubits high. 10 + 5 + 10 + 5 = 30 cubits. In other words the sides were perfectly vertical. Just granpa (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The verse in Kings I, (7:23) clearly describes it as a circle. "עֶשֶׂר בָּאַמָּה מִשְּׂפָתוֹ עַד-שְׂפָתוֹ עָגֹל סָבִיב", "en cubits from brim to brim, round in compass" And the 30 also clearly refers to its diameter, not the size of one of its sides. Jon513 (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I never said it wasnt circular. "And he maketh the molten sea, ten by the cubit from its edge unto its edge; [it is] round all about, and five by the cubit [is] its height, and a line of thirty by the cubit doth compass it round about". "Compass it round" could mean the circumference but it doesn't have to mean that.Just granpa (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are you adding its height to its diameter, and twice at that? The fact that that sum equals its circumference is purely coincidental.  Downstrike (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What the Bible Text Really Says Suggestion
Rabbi Nehemiah's assumption that that the Sea's circumference was measured on the inside is problematical. Has anyone else ever tried to measure the inside circumference of a round container? If one really wanted that measurement, they'd more likely measure the inside diameter of the container, and then use π to find the inside circumference. However, the inside diameter is not given. (This isn't to say that the Rabbi's commentary doesn't belong in the article, because it represents a significant Point of View.)

The Rabbi's assumption is also unnecessary. 1 Kings 7:26 describes the brim or rim as, "like the flower of a lily" (WEB, ERV, ASV, ESV), or "like a lily blossom" (NIV, NET, NWT; many others read similarly), and "like the rim of a cup" (KJV, ASV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, ISV, ERV, WBT, WEB; most others read similarly) Lily blossoms are generally flared more or less like the bells of wind instruments. Cups of that era were also commonly flared at the brim or rim.

The question the Bible leaves unanswered is the width of the flare beyond the diameter of the container, but that is easily answered using π. For πd = C, a circumference of 30 cubits around the main body of the container produces a diameter of about 9.5493 cubits. Therefore, the diameter of the brim or rim - where the diameter is measured - is about .4507 cubit wider than the body of the container. Assuming 1 cubit = 18 inches, as the main article does, when converted to inches, .4507 cubit is about 8.1126 inches, and the flare itself is about 4.0563 inches wide, since it's measured twice in the outside diameter.

Meanwhile, the highly ridiculed article, Determination of the Hebrew Value used for Pi, published in the January, 1981 issue of Acts and Facts by Theodore Rybka, estimates a diameter of 9.545 for the Sea, which is a very close approximation of the result above, and considering the rounding of decimal places, is probably identical. The ridicule, by Antitheists - none of whom dare to state how Rybka arrived at this figure - is in reality, ridicule of how they desire others to perceive his estimate, rather than of how he arrived at it. Otherwise, they would state how Rybka arrived at his estimate, as any ethical scientists would do, to document that they comprehend his methods and explain why they are wrong, if they are. No real scientist or historian would use ridicule in place of documentation; only pseudoscientists, pseudohistorians, and bigoted propagandists would do so.

Since the diameter of the flared brim or rim is wider than the diameter of the main body of the container, it could never be used to accurately determine the circumference of the body of the container. Attempting to do so is intellectually dishonest, Antitheistic sophistry, and is primarily motivated by the purpose of contriving propaganda.

The flare on the artist's rendition of the Sea shown in the article appears to me to be wider than 4 inches, but I've seen other artists' renditions make it look even wider, so I suppose the article may have the best rendition available. At least these artists recognize that the brim or rim whose diameter is measured, is flared, which puts them and their viewers a step ahead of audiences who put faith in a doctrine claiming that the Bible says π = 3.

The above is mostly synthesis, so here are a couple better known commentaries:


 * 1) "The prevailing opinion of scholars, however, appears to be that it was 30 cubits in circumference only at the lip, and that it bellied out considerably below." - Pulpit Commentary, 1 Kings 7:26, Henry Donald and Maurice Spence-Jones, editors.
 * 2) '1 Kings 7:26 says, “Its thickness was a handbreadth; and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held two thousand baths.”  This means that the basin had a rim that was greater in circumference than the circumference of the basin’s main body (due to its ornate lilylike shape). According to 1 Kings 7:23, the basin was 10 cubits from “rim to rim,” which probably included the thick edge fashioned like a lily that was a “handbreadth” in width.' - Does the Bible Teach that Pi = 3? Trent Horn, Catholic Answers.

None of the above should be taken to mean the article is useless. Propaganda needs to be documented. Downstrike (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Given the volume as two thousand baths and the height as five cubits, we have first to discern whose standards of measure we are using.
 * Given Solomon's empire was carved out of an Egyptian province before there is much evidence for Hebrews inventing their own standards of measure, and that its a public work designed for a king its likely that Egyptian royal cubits of 525 mm were used.
 * We also need to take into account Sir Isaac Newton's interest and the possibility that the Imperial measures were based on the value of plus or minus seven Imperial gallons to a bath.
 * The epath is a dry measure and the [ha]omer is a wet measure of 7 imperial gallons or 1941.94 =~ 1942 cubic in, suggesting a septenary standard for Pi of 3 1/7 or 25 UK buckets = 3.157 cubic cubits 3 1/7 = 3.14285714285714285714285714285714
 * 2000 omer = 3883872.1 cu in., =~ 2500 UK buckets = 315.7 cubic cubits http://www.convertunits.com/from/cubic+cubit+[ancient+egypt]/to/bucket+[UK] 67.253.23.84 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Two thousand baths
The article says "The basin contained water sufficient for two thousand baths." I'm not quite sure how to re-word this, but I think this wording is confusing for two reasons:

1.) Those who are not already aware that this word "bath" is the transliteration of בַּת (a word referring to a particular unit of measure) may easily misunderstand, since the wording really sounds like it could be talking about the English word "bath" (as in, "the basin holds water sufficient to fill 2000 bathtubs", or "enough water sufficient to take 2000 baths", which is false). I'm wondering if maybe italics should be used for this sort of thing.

2.) I'm not quite sure what is meant by "sufficient". The Bible just says "it held two thousand baths".  The Douay Rheims translation (which renders the word as "bates", not "baths") has some commentary (citing 2 Chronicles 4:5) saying that the basin could hold up to 3000 bates if you fill it all the way up, although it normally held only held 2000.  So maybe the article means "at least 2000 baths"?  Either way, I think the word "sufficient" is unclear, and confusing when combined with the other problem. 2601:49:8400:26B:A161:5457:BD01:E114 (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)