Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 1Ki 7:23 apparent error measuring sea | 1 Kin 7:23 | LocalSaint | 2520 | ||
I disagree that the circumfrence would probably be measured internally. It MIGHT be, but no reason to think PROBABLY. If measured by a chord or string (KJV, NKJ, NIV) it would PROBABLY be outside. I cannot read the original Hebrew. Chuck Missler explained it with the numeric values of the Hebrew characters. That a squiggle mark (like a jot or tittle) was missing from some manuscript. The numeric value without the mark was 105. The mark added 5 (106 plus 5 eq. 111), increasing the circumfrence to 30x111/106 eq. 31.415, dividing by pi gives a diameter of 9.9997 instead of 10. But I don't understand how these numeric values of the Hebrew characters (106, 105, 111) relate to cubits (10, 30). Nor am I comfortable with the idea of a "misspelling" in the manuscript. Can anyone clarify this explanation, or is there a better one? LocalSaint |
||||||
2 | 1Ki 7:23 apparent error measuring sea | 1 Kin 7:23 | djconklin | 28341 | ||
It is possible that the circumference was measured internally--it helps to know how it was built. What they did was to create a huge clay "mound" of the internal shape of the bowl. They then covered the outside with wax. Then they put a coat of clay on the outside with some holes left at the bottom. Then they poured molten brass in the top and this melted the wax that then ran out the holes at the bottom. Once the brass hardens they take off the outside layer of clay, flip the bowl over and haul it to the Temple. The only problem I see with Missler's (what was the source?) approach is that 111/106 doesn't come up to 1.415, it is 1.04717 (which is still awfully close considering the level of technology of the day). But, I don't know where he is getting the 105 figure from in the first place, either. That there could be a missing jot over time would not be surprising (and is frequently used to solve other little numerical problems) and doesn't have to be completely missing from some mss either--the little jots and titles are very small (it is no wonder some people ruined their eyesight trying to read Hebrew!), it could have been very faded when the mss was copied. The approach I took was that the critics had to make a number of assumptions in order to sustain their claim. The full picture can be seen at http://biblestudy.iwarp.com |
||||||