Talk:Molten Sea

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dimensions seem incorrect

message: 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)
thread_title: Value for Pi

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  the sides were perfectly vertical 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two thousand baths