God must have sucked at math

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
If 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles were written through spiritual inspiration, then they were spiritually inspired to be nonsense.

Solomon's Temple contained a Sea of cast metal. *It is described in both 1 Kings 7 and in 2 Chronicles 4.
"It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held*two*thousand*baths." -*1 Kings 7:26**
"It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held*three*thousand*baths." -*2 Chronicles 4:5

How big was it? *Did it hold two thousand baths as it says in 1 Kings, or three thousand baths as it says in 2 Chronicles? This contradiction is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The*passages*give the dimensions of the Sea, so we can figure it out for ourselves.

"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits*[o]*from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits*[p]*to measure around it."*- 1 Kings 7:23

Ten cubits is 15 feet, so it is a circular sea 15 feet across and 7 and a half feet high.**
7.5(radius)sqrd = 56.25 * pi = 176.7 square feet*7.5 (height) = 1325.25 cubic feet of volume at most assuming a perfect cylinder. If instead the Brazen Sea were bowl shaped, as has always been depicted, this volume would be even less. According to Josephus, "Solomon also cast a Brazen sea, the figure of which was a hemisphere." Were this the case, the Sea would have a volume of 883 cubic feet.

2000 baths equals 11,500 gallons, which means it would need to be 1537.3 cubic feet in volume according to 1 Kings, and 17,500 gallons, or 2339.4 cubic feet according to 2 Chronicles. *So according to the dimensions given, the Sea was way too small to hold either 2000 baths or 3000 baths. *This means that not only does 1 Kings conflict with 2 Chronicles, but they both conflict with themselves.

My mistake I misunderstood you're point, this post is now useless.

Last edited:
Is no one going to try and defend the Bible's messed up math?

There are hundred's of inconsistencies in the bible. I highly doubt anyone will rush to have an in-depth discussion around the number of bath tubs.

Why focus on bathtubs when you can be getting into the inconsistencies around the resurrection, virgin birth, life of Jesus, etc.

Last edited:
I personally always pay attention to the "Don't Feed the Troll" signs.

this thread was obviously started with the intent to bait and troll.

There are hundred's of inconsistencies in the bible. I highly doubt anyone will rush to have an in-depth discussion around the number of bath tubs.

Why focus on bathtubs when you can be getting into the inconsistencies around the resurrection, virgin birth, life of Jesus, etc.

Those are done to death. Apologists love taking on those kinds of inconsistencies, because there is more wiggle room. Math is much harder to argue with, so I am interested to see people try.

Or I suppose we could all just agree that the Bible is fundamentally flawed...

I already posted a rebuttal but I deleted my post. I'd rather just not get involved.

No. Your link only even attempts to refute the very first portion.

A "bath" is a unit of measurement that is equivalent to 8 gallons of water.

3000*8 = 24,000 gallons of water, the equivalent of 3208.3 cubic feet of water

The "molten sea" was described as being between 883.125 and 1325.25 cubic feet in volume. Neither of which would be sufficient to hold the three thousand baths described.

See the problem? The volume given does not match the dimensions described.

Furthermore, the explanation given in your link doesn't even make sense. How does "received and held" suddenly mean that it "could have received and held but didn't actually"? "Received" means that 3000 baths was actually poured into it, and "held" means that 3000 baths stayed inside it. In which case 1 Kings is just lying about how much it contained.

God doesn't suck at math, the people who wrote the Bible did. It's not God's fault that people associate him with a bunch of fairy tales written by cave men.

I personally always pay attention to the "Don't Feed the Troll" signs.

this thread was obviously started with the intent to bait and troll.

And yet you posted anyway, without even remotely addressing the topic.

Do you think that this math error was a mistake on God's part, or do you think as I do that the Bible just isn't the word of God?

And yet you posted anyway, without even remotely addressing the topic.

Do you think that this math error was a mistake on God's part, or do you think as I do that the Bible just isn't the word of God?

or do I really not give a rat's ass?

This thread makes me think that someone clearly has too much time on his hands and is in desperate need of a lay.

or do I really not give a rat's ass?

Ok. Do you really not give a rat's ass whether the Bible is the word of God or not?

This thread makes me think that someone clearly has too much time on his hands and is in desperate need of a lay.

Thanks for the offer, but I shall have to respectfully decline.

Thanks for the offer, but I shall have to respectfully decline.

I don't have sex with people who spend their time thinking about stupid stuff like this.

Ok. Do you really not give a rat's ass whether the Bible is the word of God or not?

no, I just really don't give a rat's ass whether you think it is or is not.

I don't have sex with people who spend their time thinking about stupid stuff like this.

Aesop once told a story about a fox who saw some delicious looking grapes, but when the fox discovered that he couldn't obtain the grapes, he claimed that he didn't want them because they were sour.

Defense mechanisms are your minds way of dealing with rejection in a way that minimizes its effect on your self worth. It's perfectly natural.

no, I just really don't give a rat's ass whether you think it is or is not.

Your deflection is telling of your inability to debate the subject. Either the math isn't wrong, God did the math wrong, or the Bible is not God's word. Since the math is clearly wrong and no one can defend it, that leaves only the latter two options. Either God did the math wrong, or the Bible isn't God's word.

Deflect all you like. I would rather be right than liked, so if you really want to put me in my place, correct my math. As it is, your off-topic posturing only serves to amuse.

Aesop once told a story about a fox who saw some delicious looking grapes, but when the fox discovered that he couldn't obtain the grapes, he claimed that he didn't want them because they were sour.

Defense mechanisms are your minds way of dealing with rejection in a way that minimizes its effect on your self worth. It's perfectly natural.

I rejected you first.

I rejected you first.

A brief review of the thread reveals that you proposed intercourse in post 12, which I rejected in post 14, whereupon you claimed not to want it anyway in post 15.

Denial is the first step in the grieving process. ;-)

A brief review of the thread reveals that you proposed intercourse in post 12, which I rejected in post 14, whereupon you claimed not to want it anyway in post 15.

Denial is the first step in the grieving process. ;-)

I didn't propose intercourse, i suggested that you aren't getting any. I never suggested that I wanted to fill that void.

I didn't propose intercourse, i suggested that you aren't getting any. I never suggested that I wanted to fill that void.

Good job, Panache. I think you've really changed a lot of minds on this thread. :sarcasticclap

More so interesting that no one (that I noticed) pointed out that: no actually *counted* out - 1 bath, 2 baths, 3 baths, 4 . . . :shrug:

It thus should suffice to say: it was a big ass ****ing building. . . that is merely the POINT that is being delivered - and if you're going to not see the forest from the trees then perhaps analyzing the Bible isn't your niche in life because it'll just give you a headache.

It's written over centuries by countless different people and the original books were in different languages and dialects - and some were from direct experiences, others were 'hearsay' and many were 'many years after the event'

"It was a big ass ****ing building"

Last edited:
If 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles were written through spiritual inspiration, then they were spiritually inspired to be nonsense.

Solomon's Temple contained a Sea of cast metal. *It is described in both 1 Kings 7 and in 2 Chronicles 4.

How big was it? *Did it hold two thousand baths as it says in 1 Kings, or three thousand baths as it says in 2 Chronicles? This contradiction is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The*passages*give the dimensions of the Sea, so we can figure it out for ourselves.

Ten cubits is 15 feet, so it is a circular sea 15 feet across and 7 and a half feet high.**
7.5(radius)sqrd = 56.25 * pi = 176.7 square feet*7.5 (height) = 1325.25 cubic feet of volume at most assuming a perfect cylinder. If instead the Brazen Sea were bowl shaped, as has always been depicted, this volume would be even less. According to Josephus, "Solomon also cast a Brazen sea, the figure of which was a hemisphere." Were this the case, the Sea would have a volume of 883 cubic feet.

2000 baths equals 11,500 gallons, which means it would need to be 1537.3 cubic feet in volume according to 1 Kings, and 17,500 gallons, or 2339.4 cubic feet according to 2 Chronicles. *So according to the dimensions given, the Sea was way too small to hold either 2000 baths or 3000 baths. *This means that not only does 1 Kings conflict with 2 Chronicles, but they both conflict with themselves.

Maybe the same way 5 loaves and 2 fishes fed 4000 people?