Solomon's Molten Sea in the Temple

[tim_from_pa]

I ought to start a poll, but instead just verbal feedback is OK. Was that molten sea cylindrical or semi-spherical?  You can do research if you want first and help get a consensus.  Based on calculations I want to see if he used the royal cubit (20.628") or the relatively obscure sacred cubit (about 21% longer). It's just the math and "Sir Isaac Newton" in me and for those who like to calculate this stuff. What think ye?  

Edited July 23, 2022 by tim_from_pa
spelling

[tim_from_pa]

OK. I'm going to make this statement.  Using the dimensions of the molten sea, if it was semi-spherical, we can calculate the volume.  If cylindrical (still round all about by some interpretations), it would be 1.5 times the volume of the semi-sphere. If tapered like a big Dixie cup, then the volume would be somewhere in between.  No matter what the cubit was in our length, we can calculate the cubic cubits of each shape.  If we then convert to cubic inches (or metric if you prefer), we can then convert to gallons (or liters). The volume results would be different depending what cubit length you used.  Hold that thought.

Now, almost all the theological experts claim the bath was over 5 gallons (5.81 to be exact).  And we know the molten sea held 2000 baths (another passage actually stated 3000).  So, if we calculate the cubic volume of both shapes, I can tell you now that the common 18" cubit was not used. 2000 baths would not fit into either shape.  If we use the ~21" royal cubit, then the shape MUST be cylindrical as even with that measure the water would only fit into a cylindrical shape.  If we use a ~25" sacred cubit, it would fit into a semi-spherical bowl. It is noteworthy to mention here that the 21" cubit is accepted, but the 25" one is not so much as that is considered an esoteric, conspiracy type belief. Now hold this thought because I'm going to draw some conclusions.

My observation before the conclusions:  I don't see why Solomon wanted to support the molten sea on 12 oxen under a "big cup" as in this case would have been more decorative (maybe it was, though) and/or served as a part of a trough fixture for the water.  On the other hand, if this molten sea was more semi-spherical, you would need such a stand, as with a globe stand so that it would not roll like a big rock and the priests would have to run like in the Indiana Jones scene.

If these two facts are accepted:

1) the 5.81 gallon bath

2) The Royal cubit ~21"

then the molten sea was not based on the 18" cubit and must have been generally cylindrical in shape.  There is no other way.

The bothersome thing is to look at many pictures on the Internet of the molten sea.  Why do the majority believe it is then semi-spherical?  Only a larger cubit can accomplish that.  Now despite my conclusion, I don't personally believe that statement. That's just what the facts say if indeed the conditions were as stated and would be true.

[tim_from_pa]

But then again, I forgotten about the part where King Ahaz took it off of the oxen and set the sea on a pavement of stone (2 Kings 16:17) so that agrees with the conclusions about its possibly cylindrical (or cup) shaped. This did not roll like Indiana Jones after all.  LOL  I remember this passage now but forgot about it.  It would have been flat enough not to roll in other words.  However, we cannot rule out the possibility that this was bowl-shaped as well which would have the same volume as somewhere between the semi-sphere and cylindrical shape. Just thinking and recording aloud here.  Don't know if anyone's into the mathematics of this or not, but I find ancient biblical measure interesting (I even found a paper that stated the bath was not a set volume, but rather a specific jar).  Sir Isaac Newton found this type of stuff interesting and searched for such a measure.

[Dennis1209]

The Bible does not differentiate which of the several elbows to fingertip cubits. Mathematics is not one of my stronger suits, but it would be interesting to know which measurement is being cited.

As we know, God is the Master Mathematician; biblical numbers are significant and have meaning, just as biblical Hebrew/Greek names do. We can glean additional information and insight with numbers and biblical names.

I would like to know in inches how long the biblical cubit is and the furlong for other calculations—the height of Goliath, Og of Bashan, and other Titian giants and Nephilim.

By any of the several measurements of a cubit, I find some of the giants listed in the non-canonical book of I Enoch interesting. Using a 21-inch cubit, some were approaching ¾ of a mile tall, outrageous. I emailed some reputable Christian authors of popular books and programs who frequently cite the pseudepigraph for a study about that. Insert crickets chirping.

One day we will receive our mansions or our rooms or dwelling places. I got to wondering how large these rooms could be. The cubic volume of the New Jerusalem had to be calculated, but scholars cannot agree on how long a furlong is. So, I used New Jerusalem as a box or cube 1,500Lx 1,500H x 1,500W in miles.

It is estimated about 108 billion people have lived, wide is the gate narrow is the way (10%), etc. Using something like the Drake Equation of everything unknown, I came up with an individual room about the size of a standard master bedroom. That’s about as accurate as evolution theory.

But anyway, biblical numbers and measurements are of critical importance in symbology, structure, prophecy, and theology. Why are such mathematical precision, detail, and measurement listed for the Tabernacle, Temple, implements, Ark of the Covenant, and your example?

[tim_from_pa]

Quote

The Bible does not differentiate which of the several elbows to fingertip cubits. Mathematics is not one of my stronger suits, but it would be interesting to know which measurement is being cited.

In the bible, I noticed mentions the "cubit of a man" thus what I take to mean the forearm measurement (this was what the King of Og was measured by) and the  cubit of ~21" which is the "Cubit and a span".   Ezekiel mentions a cubit and a handbreadth (the ~21" cubit plus a handbreadth which is ~25"?).  The bible does not say for sure as the cubits seem to be casually mentioned as if the reader back then knew what they meant.  Sir Isaac Newton looked for such a long cubit considering it was related to the size of the earth.  He was correct in that such a measure was found in the Great Pyramid (25.0265" to be exact) which is 1/10,000,000 the polar diameter of the earth.  If that sounds strange, then consider the metric system where 1/10,000,000 th of a quadrant is a meter.  Thus, If true, we can understand why the ratio of the inch to a centimeter is about 8/PI.  Going on a tangent, it also shows the relationship between Israel, Egypt and Britain.  I think there's a reason we've clung (unknowingly) to the English system of measure as if that were to be preserved, but I digress.

Now with the molten sea, A cylindrical shape is the maximum volume (as it has to be circular and equal height to its radius) or as small as semi-spherical.  As with any mathematician, I'm trying to establish a minimum and maximum limit assuming it was filled to the brim.  The inner radius was 30/2PI = 4.775 cubits approximately.  The volume of such a semi-sphere is shy of 228 cubic cubits and for a cylinder 1.5 times that or about 342- (shy) cubic cubits.  Any other shape is somewhere between. What's my point?  A lot of these theologians, ministries or whatever will tell you this esoteric stuff is bad- stay away from it and then proceed to bad mouth the likes of Sir Isaac Newton as being a quack.  Yet these same ones will mindlessly say that the cubit was 17.5" or 18" and a bath 5.8 gallons because that's the "official" archaeological consensus so "sit down, be quiet and listen" is their message. Problem is, 2000 baths won't fit in that size bowl, even the larger cylindrical one. It will fit into the cylindrical one only if a 21" cubit is used, which I agree is a possibility. So the cubit had to be at least that long, possibly longer.

But as I already quipped, if these shepherds (teachers) of our souls can't get something this straightforward correct with basic math and a $10 store-bought calculator, how can we expect anything else they say to be true? (In other words, they can care less in this error). I suppose that's because I don't tolerate shots at ol' Sir Isaac despite his strange demeanor.  As you say, these numbers aren't there for a mathematician's exercise, but for a deeper purpose.  In all this, I am very pleased that you are one who at least sees this.  After all, IMO, the best theologians are scientists and mathematicians as well.  Their take on spirituality is like none other that most ever heard.

[Desopixi Seilynam]

It was a perfect circle, the cubit measurement was done with a 1x stick.
So it was 5 cubits just as it says; 1 Kings 7:23

29.9079368 / 9.52 = 3.14159. 

Math.round(29.9079368) = 30.
Math.round(9.52) = 10.

[tim_from_pa]

35 minutes ago, Desopixi Seilynam said:

It was a perfect circle, the cubit measurement was done with a 1x stick.
So it was 5 cubits just as it says; 1 Kings 7:23

29.9079368 / 9.52 = 3.14159. 

Math.round(29.9079368) = 30.
Math.round(9.52) = 10.

Yes, what you have shown is that the top part was circular which I don't think anyone would dispute.  However, it's possible that a cylinder (or any other shape) can be as high as the radius on top.  I think what we tend to do, myself included, is assume that since the height was the same as the radius is that it's implying this shape to be a sphere.  After all, why not ten cubits, 30 round about and say, seven cubits high if it was another shape?  It would still be circular on the top.

 

[Desopixi Seilynam]

On 8/7/2022 at 6:25 PM, tim_from_pa said:

It would still be circular on the top.

Oh, I see.
It could have been bloated outward also, like a giant bowl.
I imagine it would also have to be built specially such that the end result is a completely flat surface of water.

[tim_from_pa]

13 hours ago, Desopixi Seilynam said:

Oh, I see.
It could have been bloated outward also, like a giant bowl.
I imagine it would also have to be built specially such that the end result is a completely flat surface of water.

Yes.