Glazius: I've got some objections to the site you referenced to.
"Can't we do the same for the Phoenicians, even if they were gasp! friendly with the Jews?"
This makes it seem that the entire debate is something that is to bash some Jews. That is not the case and doesn't make the source seem reliable. It makes me think that they might just be making excuses.
"If this discussion of a "sea", or large bowl, had been referring to what is called an "ideal" bowl (a mathematical object, not existing in a physical sense, and having no thickness that could be felt or handled), then the text would indeed be claiming that the value of pi is three. But the text is referring to a real-world physical object, having the thick sidewalls necessary to support its own weight."
You can still give the wall of the bowl multiple dimensions if the outer circumference is 30 cubits. I can calculate the circumference, radius and diameter from all kinds of bowls with different wall thicknesses. You just need an accurate value for pi. This would just mean that the text was wrong (or simplified), which I find easier to believe than an explanation that requires theoretical shapes to be used when discussing civilizations more than 2000 years old.
But let's go with it. We'll get something nice soon.
"Using eighteen inches for one cubit, we have the following:
outer diameter: 10 cubits, or 180 inches
outer radius: 5 cubits, or 90 inches
inner circumference: 30 cubits, or 540 inches"
The inner circumference is 30 cubits? Why would anyone give orders to build a bowl while giving only the inner circumference? Looking at it logically you'd expect the outer dimensions to be given if you order something to be build, that would make it far more likely that the item would fit in the place you want it to. Especially considering the length of a cubit. It's better to risk a slightly larger circumference with the additional measurements ranging inwards from that than to build something to large and then add even more to it's size by "adding" the dimensions of the "walls". But since we don't know we could assume that it could be right. Let's go on for a bit.
"Since the thickness of the bowl is given as one handsbreadth, then the inner radius must be:
90 4 = 86 inches"
I'm 181 centimeters tall. My "handsbreadth" is 10 centimeters, which is just over 3.11 inches. Considering that people were (quite a bit) smaller back in the day we can assume that their hands were also smaller. How did they ever get the 4 inches as a size for the hands apart from the notion that it would fit in with their theory?
While it is a very good attempt at being an apologetic (I really loath people who call themselves that. If you believe something to be true you don't need to make "apologies" for clear errors and inconsistencies), it is just not very convincing. Saying that the bible claims that pi = 3 is shaky at best, but jumping trough all kinds of hoops to explain it away is far worse than just saying something like "It was just the approximate size".
