THE <\/strong>G<\/strong>O<\/strong>LD<\/strong>EN <\/strong>R<\/strong>ATIO<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/strong><\/p>\nAs noted a moment ago, critics like Sandoval ignore Old and New Testament evidences which demonstrate the basis of why there could be a hiatus between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel, and likewise complain of Christians who read with \u201cmicrometer\u201d precision the numbers in the Scriptures. Thus\u00a0they claim the Bible is just rounding off numbers by authors who wrote after the fact and under pseudonyms. And so these biblical authors (say skeptics) have deceived their readers through either\u00a0\u2018prophetic\u2019 utterances for the purpose of rallying nationalistic feeling or, as Sandoval thinks, by offering inspirational fiction in the same vein as the Left Behind <\/em>series.<\/p>\nIn either case this matter of the Bible rounding off numbers must be addressed.<\/p>\n
Now, of course, Christians would not say there is no <\/em>rounding off of numbers in the Scriptures. For we do not suppose casualty numbers relating to Old Testament wars given in exact thousands are not always or nearly always rounded off. Likewise, in Numbers chapter 2 the count of men for each of the 12 tribes of Israel end in either a fifty or a hundred, showing an apparent rounding off to the nearest 50. We grant such examples are meant to be understood as a rounding of numbers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
But Sandoval goes too far when claiming a rounding of numbers for Solomon\u2019s Sea.3 <\/strong>Here is the primary\u00a0example he gives for faulting the \u201cmicrometer\u201d reading of numbers in prophecies like Daniel 9:\u00a0<\/p>\nSecondly, the Jews were in the habit of using round and stereotyped numbers, just as we do when we speak of a \u201cninety-day wonder\u201d or a person who works a \u201c24\/7\u201d job. To cite a parallel example, it was an acceptable round-number approximation for the biblical authors to say that the Molten Sea in Solomon\u2019s Temple (a huge, circular bowl of water) was ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in outer circumference (I Ki. 7:23-24; II Chron. 4:2-3). Their measures were accurate to the nearest cubit if the diameter was actually 9.65 cubits, and the circumference was actually 30.30 cubits.<\/p>\n
Now, when the above was quoted in an online discussion thread by someone opposing my position that<\/p>\n
Daniel\u2019s numbers were not rounded off, I contacted my brother David. This is because 30 years ago he had made a particular study of the biblical (sacred<\/em>) cubit found in Solomon\u2019s Sea. David had followed the 19th century work on the biblical cubit by John Taylor (member of the Royal Society of London), Piazzi Smyth (Astronomer Royal of Scotland), archaeologist William F. Albright (who established an approximate value for the royal bath, i.e., the standard liquid measurement in certain regions of the ancient world), and even the much earlier Isaac Newton, who had written an entire monograph on the subject of the biblical cubit. Taylor, Smyth, and Newton had all concluded that the sacred cubit was around 25 inches. Taylor and Smyth had found that the sacred cubit was a recurring unit of measurement in the construction of the Great Pyramid. (Newton also appealed to other evidences besides the Great Pyramid.) This\u00a0included the perimeter of the four walls at their base made into a circumference of a circle, whose radius proved to be the height of the Great Pyramid, thus paralleling the circumference at the earth\u2019s equator to the earth\u2019s polar radius, showing the cubit to be 1\/10 millionth of the polar radius of the earth.4 <\/strong>Albright\u2019s work involved liquid measurements derived from comparing a broken piece of pottery marked \u201cone royal bath\u201d with jars that were complete, and estimated the royal bath to about 22 liters. Additional archeological findings yielded estimates for the bath at 22.7, 22.8, 22.9 and 23.3 liters.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
![\"Piazzi](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/Piazzi-Smyth-233x300.jpg\")
Piazzi Smyth (1819 \u2013 1900)<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Taking this information and suspecting one royal bath might equal the biblical bath, David explored whether there might be some significance to the measurements in Solomon\u2019s Sea. First, he assumed that the two biblical passages which give the size of Solomon\u2019s Sea (shaped hemispherically, according to Josephus)\u20142,000 baths by one account, and 3,000 baths by the other\u2014pertained to the actual fill mark of the water versus the Sea\u2019s fullest capacity (I Ki. 7:23-26; II Chron. 4:2-5). Calculating the volumetric capacity of 3,000 baths based on the Sea\u2019s description of 5 cubits high and 10 cubits in diameter (\u201cbrim to brim\u201d), and assuming the biblical cubit was 25.0265 inches, based on today\u2019s present estimates of the polar radius of the earth which are nearly exact to the Great Pyramid findings of Smyth, yielded a surprising result. The figure was 22.4149 liters, the\u00a0<\/em>same volumetric capacity of a molar volume of an ideal gas <\/em>(the volume taken up by one mole of an ideal gas at a given temperature\u00a0and pressure). Further, when one considers that Ezekiel (45:10-11) specifies the same volumetric space for one bath as also\u00a0one ephah<\/em>\u2014the standard unit for dry <\/em>measurement\u2014one faces a decision. It is whether to believe that all these measurements and findings which point to a unified field of measures are\u00a0mathematical coincidences, or else to believe the Bible\u2019s statement that the craftsmen who made the First Temple objects were careful to follow the Davidic pattern set down by God,\u00a0who apparently used a common unit of measurement to establish dry, liquid, and gaseous measures, i.e. all three forms of matter<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"David](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/David-Gracely-260x300.jpg\")
David Gracely, several years after he discovered the connection between the biblical cubit and the three forms of matter.<\/p><\/div><\/strong><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
However, I was at first hesitant to share this information online about the biblical bath equaling a molar volume of gas because of a statement about a 30-cubit line in I Kings 7:23. This statement had puzzled my brother ever since his discovery that the volume of a biblical bath equaled a molar volume of an ideal gas. The passage runs thus:<\/p>\n
(<\/strong>23<\/strong>)<\/strong>And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. (<\/strong>24<\/strong>)<\/strong>And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Sandoval, to his credit, actually takes a more charitable view than those skeptics who claim the Bible stupidly thinks \u03c0 <\/strong>= 3 (30 over 10) instead of 3.14159+.<\/p>\nWhile I myself was predisposed toward granting that my brother\u2019s discovery likely showed a divine blueprint for using the same volumetric capacity to establish liquid and gaseous units of measurements (at the time, I was ignorant of the Ezekiel passage stating that one bath equaled one ephah, or I would have added the dry measurement to my list as well), I personally felt there was a weakness in David\u2019s theory. For when I asked him if the 30-cubit line might be the water-fill mark inside the bowl, he said, no, he had tried that long ago and found it was 30.6. \u201cIt must be a lower mark [of some kind],\u201d he said. But I knew he\u00a0could be attacked on this point by skeptics who would claim he had no right to assume \u03c0 <\/strong>from the\u00a0diameter of 10 cubits given, and that he was only assuming \u03c0 <\/strong>for the sake of wanting data that supported his view of a divinely-instituted unified field of measures for both the biblical bath and a molar volume of gas. And, frankly, I could sympathize with this anticipated objection by skeptics, and suggested to David I delay introducing his thoughts into the discussion thread. But after some minutes of David and I discussing this problem of a lower-mark-of-30-cubits-for-some-reason<\/em>, which I found unsatisfactory, I suggested\u00a0he see if somehow the 30-cubit line corresponded to the golden mean. Also known as the golden ratio, this\u00a0is the most discussed mathematical relationship of part-to-the-whole found in pre-modern art and architecture, especially in the Classical and Renaissance eras. It was a guess on my part, but the next morning David called excitedly to tell me that the 30-cubit line did indeed show the golden ratio if the line were placed outside <\/em>the bowl, like a latitudinal line around a globe positioned about 19 degrees lower than the \u2018equator\u2019 (the bowl\u2019s rim) of the half-ball of Solomon\u2019s Sea.5<\/strong><\/p>\nThat is, if we could look down inside Solomon\u2019s bowl to the bottom and saw a vertical pole reaching to the height of the brim, let us divide this pole into two line segments. The first segment (x<\/em>) is the height of the 30-cubit line of circumference, the other from there to the brim (y<\/em>). Then x <\/em>divided by y <\/em>is within\u00a01\/3400th of the Golden mean. Put another way, the Golden mean would be exact if the 30-cubit line of circumference were 1\/70th of an inch longer.6 <\/strong>This is well within an acceptable margin of error. From there we surmised that the purpose of the 30-cubit line was to establish a line that divided above and below the two rows of gourd-shaped, brass carvings (KJV \u201cknops\u201d; Heb. lit. colocynth-gourds<\/em>) surrounding the bowl (I Kings 7:24). Incidentally, for purposes of establishing the golden mean in Solomon\u2019s Sea, it does not even matter what the length of the biblical cubit is, since all measurements are relative to the same unit of measure. (Note: the thickness of the bowl is stated to be one handbreadth, which by definition is 1\/7 of a sacred cubit; and thus all the measurements of the Sea are defined in relation to the cubit).7 <\/strong>Interestingly, the sacred cubit used by Solomon was \u201caccording to the old standard\u201d of a cubit, so stated by the writer of II Chronicles 3:3 (see NASB).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
![\"Solomons](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/Solomons-Sea-scale-1024x634.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Now, the Bible records that Solomon\u2019s Sea of cast bronze was broken up in pieces and taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar upon his destruction of Jerusalem (in 586 BC), following the capture of king Zedekiah in his 11th year. It is not hard to imagine, then, that measurements could have been taken of the Sea before it was broken up (Jer. 52:17), this information taken to Babylon along with the actual fragmented artifact,\u00a0to eventually find its way into the hands of contemporary Grecian mathematicians of the 6th century, such as Pythagoras, who is generally credited with the invention of the golden ratio. Or, since this written <\/em>description in the Old Testament of the golden ratio predates Pythagoras by more than 300 years, the information certainly may have taken another route, especially since the Bible states that \u201call the kings of\u00a0the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, that God had put in his heart,\u201d which\u00a0suggests retinues of persons and observers from different nations, such as the Queen of Sheba (est. 960\u00a0BC), who not only tested Solomon with hard questions but also remarked on the manner of the coming and going of his servants. But especially we are told of the Babylonian <\/em>retinue that visited Hezekiah (in 711\u00a0BC). They came to congratulate Hezekiah on his restoration of health, and Hezekiah showed them all his treasures. Presumably, they may have been told in detail about temple artifacts in the Inner Court of the temple where the Bronze Sea stood. We may suppose, then, that persons among such retinues may have been interested in the architectural and artistic\u00a0accomplishments constructed under Solomon.\u00a0And so we ought to grant that the descriptions of the temple\u2019s architecture and \u2018furniture\u2019 were not just exercises in mathematical draftsmanship. For elsewhere there is concern for the aesthetic\u2014i.e., the mention of blue <\/em>pomegranates as part of the temple\u2019s decorations, a color through which pomegranates do not pass in their course (Ex.\u00a028:33). This shows that more than bald,\u00a0mathematical description was aimed for in describing temple features. And doubtless this is the purpose of the golden ratio, which brilliantly combined both concerns.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
![\"queen](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/queen-of-sheba-235x300.jpg\")
King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, by Piero Dell Francesco, ca. 1452.<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
But, again, the point in all this is that either one has to attribute all these mathematical relationships to mathematical coincidences and thus conclude the Bible is \u201crounding off\u00a0numbers\u201d when it comes to Solomon\u2019s Sea, and,\u00a0by extended principle, the 70 weeks of Daniel\u2019s\u00a0prophecy which heralds the coming of the Messiah, or e<\/p>\n
lse admit that the Bible often uses specificity of numbers to drive home the point of a Common Designer and Predictor of the Future. One can imagine what position our opponents would take if similarly startling evidence was discovered which supported instead an argument for the rounding off of numbers. I soon found this out when I presented this information about the golden mean on the about.com website under one of the atheist\/agnostic discussion threads. The main detractor I had been engaging reproved me for (in his view) not reading the Bible accurately with its emphasis on \u201cround\u2026 round\u2026 round,\u201d and believed such description must <\/em>mean a cylindrical object. And so I reminded him that the only extra-biblical description of the shape of Solomon\u2019s Sea was Josephus\u2019 statement that it was a hemisphere, while noting, too, that the roundest object with a brim is a hemisphere, not a [cylindrically shaped] soup-can shaped object, since only the former is created by a constant radius from top center to any point on the surface of the object. At this point he and others dismissed my argument based on my\u00a0citation of Velikovsky\u2019s observation of ancient cultures and their calendars of 360 days8 <\/strong>(one of the related discussion points). Thus they committed the common logical fallacies of ad hominem and guilt by association. Their real failure, then, was a refusal to address the voluminous attestations about a 360-day year in the records of at least nine ancient cultures spread throughout the world. It\u2019s sad to note how often this a<\/em>historical approach seems to convince. History is rife, I believe, with many neutral observers who briefly thought about leaving the herd for independent inquiry into religion or the Bible, only to be chased back into the fold by a simple sneer and a laugh from some skeptic with border collie-like enthusiasm. Thus our opponents ignored the math demonstrating the golden mean in Solomon\u2019s Sea, the only\u00a0historical reference (by Josephus) of its exact shape, and Velikovsky\u2019s straight-forward research into the\u00a0calendars used by ancient peoples.<\/p>\nIn review, then, critics think: (1) the Bible is rounding off numbers, (2) extra-biblical sources cannot be trusted when the results would lead to a unexpected discovery like the golden ratio, (3) the written description of the golden ratio centuries before Pythagoras must be an accident, and (4) a crafted object divinely authorized in the Old Testament (I Chron. 28:9\u201429:2, esp. 28:13,19 and 29:2)\u2014with a measurement that proves to be the common unit of measure for biblical solid, liquid, and gaseous measures\u2014is not possible. I have to be frank here. This kind of so-called critical approach reminds me of a symposium on evolution reported in a Philadelphia newspaper many years ago, attended by both scientists and mathematicians. Not far into the seminar concerned mathematicians, though sympathetic to\u00a0evolution, nevertheless candidly pointed out that the numbers simply didn\u2019t allow for enough time to make evolution possible. To this the host of the symposium responded that nevertheless it was obvious \u201cevolution must be true, because we\u2019re here.\u201d Despite such brimming confidence, the host\u2019s tautological reasoning reveals the skeptic\u2019s presupposition that any explanation is logical so long as it isn\u2019t metaphysical. And so nowadays we have the idea\u2014thanks go to Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin of Stanford University\u2014that the number of universes is based on what the observer is able to conceive<\/em>. (Apologies to those who thought the number was only in the trillions.)<\/p>\nSuch cosmologies are the mutated species of the parent theory that has spawned them, namely,\u00a0evolution, or, more specifically, what evolution has evolved into. This is why the language has become ever subtler, as evolutionary theory has devolved into epicycles of explanations to explain away anomalies. One popular case in recent decades, for example, is so-called \u2018dark matter,\u2019 with its invisible particles doing invisible things to excuse the behavior of gravity, which seems to have forgotten to lessen its effect on the\u00a0\u2018starfish\u2019 arms of galaxies which trail out from galaxies\u2019 centers and so ought to be lagging behind, but\u00a0instead are keeping up their peripheral speed like the outer bands of a vinyl LP around its center label.9\u00a0<\/strong>Thus gravity need not be gravity when and where it conflicts with current evolutionary thought. Consequently, Christians, despite their centuries-long fight against bald materialism<\/em>, wax nostalgic for the former kind of scientific method that once insisted on observation alone <\/em>and<\/u> of the visibly concrete. <\/em>But once the visible <\/em>disappointed Science in delivering a fossil record showing no trans-species evolution, theories like Niles Eldridge\u2019s and S. J. Gould\u2019s punctuated equilibrium showed that fossils were never important to begin with (phew!). One searches in vain for just one evolutionist willing to invoke the kind of mantra his colleagues have used to discredit creationism whenever the ubiquitous fossil record comes up, and apply it\u00a0their own theory. For these have long argued that the sudden burial of masses of organisms and animals merely gives the appearance <\/em>of a Great Flood. But what, then, to say? For this line of argument cannot be applied against the evolutionist, because that would require there actually be <\/em>an appearance of trans- species evolution in the fossil record. But there isn\u2019t any. This is why recent theories have been developed dismissing the fossils\u2019 importance. And now the latest strategy\u2014apparently to diffuse the indisputable design in DNA obvious to anyone but\u00a0a bona fide <\/em>ignoramus\u2014is atheist superman Richard\u00a0Dawkins telling Ben Stein in No Intelligence Allowed <\/em>that it is conceivable life was <\/em>brought here by alien beings, but certainly not by the kind of homophobic God depicted in the Old Testament. And so Dawkins\u2019 final court of appeal is that\u00a0Christian theology cannot be scientific because it doesn\u2019t agree with his atheist ethics<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
![\"Stephen](\"https:\/\/danielgracely.com\/rockpapershivers\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/Stephen-J-Gould-300x267.jpg\")
While visiting the American Natural History Museum, Stephen J. Gould, age 5, saw the skeleton of Tyrannosaurus Rex. He was so impressed he decided that very moment to spend his life studying fossils.<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
But I\u2019m playing unfair. Atheism is not responsible for all this scientific mess per se<\/em>. This is why Ravi Zacaharias freely admitted to a student inquirer that\u00a0there are such things as philanthropic atheists who\u00a0live comparably righteous lives. But as Zacharias also pointed out, atheism doesn\u2019t obligate <\/em>that a man should love his neighbor as himself. This is why some atheists can be philanthropists while others can be mass murderers, like Joseph Stalin. As my brother expresses it\u2014\u201cAtheism doesn\u2019t condone murder, but neither does it condemn it.\u201d And so the problem is not just atheism per se<\/em>, but Individual Choice gone wrong. But thus the twist. Since atheism neither obligates nor necessitates, it is by definition purposeless. And what is purposeless is meaningless<\/em>. Therefore it is not just irony but also absurdity when an atheist takes pride in his atheism, as though atheism had any significance per se<\/em>. Really, there is no reason for an atheist\u00a0to even mention his atheism. It cannot lead him to social lawfulness or lawlessness, or to societal good or\u00a0bad, so what is the point? In fact, atheism cannot recognize that such categories even exist. Thus the dilemma in the Academy: since Science supports evolution for the purpose of dismissing God, what does that say about the significance of evolutionists taking pride in evolution? Yet the rapturous song continues. Thus Sagan in the opening of Cosmos:<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\nThe Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us\u2014there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.<\/p>\n
Note the interesting comparison between Sagan\u2019s benedictory-sounding descriptions of the Cosmos\u00a0versus Jesus\u2019 description of himself in Revelation. Whereas Sagan says\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cthe Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be\u201d<\/p>\n
Christ said he was the Alpha and the Omega [the Beginning and the Ending]<\/p>\n
\u201cwho is, and who was, and who is to come\u2026\u201d (Rev. 1:8 NIV)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
As noted a moment ago, critics like Sandoval ignore Old and New Testament evidences which demonstrate the basis of why there could be a hiatus between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel, and likewise complain of Christians who read with \u201cmicrometer\u201d precision the numbers in the Scriptures. Thus\u00a0they claim the Bible is just rounding off numbers by authors who wrote after the fact and under pseudonyms. And so these biblical authors (say skeptics) have deceived their readers through either\u00a0\u2018prophetic\u2019 utterances for the purpose of rallying nationalistic feeling or, as Sandoval thinks, by offering inspirational fiction in the same vein as the Left Behind <\/em>series.<\/p>\n In either case this matter of the Bible rounding off numbers must be addressed.<\/p>\n Now, of course, Christians would not say there is no <\/em>rounding off of numbers in the Scriptures. For we do not suppose casualty numbers relating to Old Testament wars given in exact thousands are not always or nearly always rounded off. Likewise, in Numbers chapter 2 the count of men for each of the 12 tribes of Israel end in either a fifty or a hundred, showing an apparent rounding off to the nearest 50. We grant such examples are meant to be understood as a rounding of numbers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But Sandoval goes too far when claiming a rounding of numbers for Solomon\u2019s Sea.3 <\/strong>Here is the primary\u00a0example he gives for faulting the \u201cmicrometer\u201d reading of numbers in prophecies like Daniel 9:\u00a0<\/p>\n Secondly, the Jews were in the habit of using round and stereotyped numbers, just as we do when we speak of a \u201cninety-day wonder\u201d or a person who works a \u201c24\/7\u201d job. To cite a parallel example, it was an acceptable round-number approximation for the biblical authors to say that the Molten Sea in Solomon\u2019s Temple (a huge, circular bowl of water) was ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in outer circumference (I Ki. 7:23-24; II Chron. 4:2-3). Their measures were accurate to the nearest cubit if the diameter was actually 9.65 cubits, and the circumference was actually 30.30 cubits.<\/p>\n Now, when the above was quoted in an online discussion thread by someone opposing my position that<\/p>\n Daniel\u2019s numbers were not rounded off, I contacted my brother David. This is because 30 years ago he had made a particular study of the biblical (sacred<\/em>) cubit found in Solomon\u2019s Sea. David had followed the 19th century work on the biblical cubit by John Taylor (member of the Royal Society of London), Piazzi Smyth (Astronomer Royal of Scotland), archaeologist William F. Albright (who established an approximate value for the royal bath, i.e., the standard liquid measurement in certain regions of the ancient world), and even the much earlier Isaac Newton, who had written an entire monograph on the subject of the biblical cubit. Taylor, Smyth, and Newton had all concluded that the sacred cubit was around 25 inches. Taylor and Smyth had found that the sacred cubit was a recurring unit of measurement in the construction of the Great Pyramid. (Newton also appealed to other evidences besides the Great Pyramid.) This\u00a0included the perimeter of the four walls at their base made into a circumference of a circle, whose radius proved to be the height of the Great Pyramid, thus paralleling the circumference at the earth\u2019s equator to the earth\u2019s polar radius, showing the cubit to be 1\/10 millionth of the polar radius of the earth.4 <\/strong>Albright\u2019s work involved liquid measurements derived from comparing a broken piece of pottery marked \u201cone royal bath\u201d with jars that were complete, and estimated the royal bath to about 22 liters. Additional archeological findings yielded estimates for the bath at 22.7, 22.8, 22.9 and 23.3 liters.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Piazzi Smyth (1819 \u2013 1900)<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Taking this information and suspecting one royal bath might equal the biblical bath, David explored whether there might be some significance to the measurements in Solomon\u2019s Sea. First, he assumed that the two biblical passages which give the size of Solomon\u2019s Sea (shaped hemispherically, according to Josephus)\u20142,000 baths by one account, and 3,000 baths by the other\u2014pertained to the actual fill mark of the water versus the Sea\u2019s fullest capacity (I Ki. 7:23-26; II Chron. 4:2-5). Calculating the volumetric capacity of 3,000 baths based on the Sea\u2019s description of 5 cubits high and 10 cubits in diameter (\u201cbrim to brim\u201d), and assuming the biblical cubit was 25.0265 inches, based on today\u2019s present estimates of the polar radius of the earth which are nearly exact to the Great Pyramid findings of Smyth, yielded a surprising result. The figure was 22.4149 liters, the\u00a0<\/em>same volumetric capacity of a molar volume of an ideal gas <\/em>(the volume taken up by one mole of an ideal gas at a given temperature\u00a0and pressure). Further, when one considers that Ezekiel (45:10-11) specifies the same volumetric space for one bath as also\u00a0one ephah<\/em>\u2014the standard unit for dry <\/em>measurement\u2014one faces a decision. It is whether to believe that all these measurements and findings which point to a unified field of measures are\u00a0mathematical coincidences, or else to believe the Bible\u2019s statement that the craftsmen who made the First Temple objects were careful to follow the Davidic pattern set down by God,\u00a0who apparently used a common unit of measurement to establish dry, liquid, and gaseous measures, i.e. all three forms of matter<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n David Gracely, several years after he discovered the connection between the biblical cubit and the three forms of matter.<\/p><\/div><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n However, I was at first hesitant to share this information online about the biblical bath equaling a molar volume of gas because of a statement about a 30-cubit line in I Kings 7:23. This statement had puzzled my brother ever since his discovery that the volume of a biblical bath equaled a molar volume of an ideal gas. The passage runs thus:<\/p>\n (<\/strong>23<\/strong>)<\/strong>And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. (<\/strong>24<\/strong>)<\/strong>And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sandoval, to his credit, actually takes a more charitable view than those skeptics who claim the Bible stupidly thinks \u03c0 <\/strong>= 3 (30 over 10) instead of 3.14159+.<\/p>\n While I myself was predisposed toward granting that my brother\u2019s discovery likely showed a divine blueprint for using the same volumetric capacity to establish liquid and gaseous units of measurements (at the time, I was ignorant of the Ezekiel passage stating that one bath equaled one ephah, or I would have added the dry measurement to my list as well), I personally felt there was a weakness in David\u2019s theory. For when I asked him if the 30-cubit line might be the water-fill mark inside the bowl, he said, no, he had tried that long ago and found it was 30.6. \u201cIt must be a lower mark [of some kind],\u201d he said. But I knew he\u00a0could be attacked on this point by skeptics who would claim he had no right to assume \u03c0 <\/strong>from the\u00a0diameter of 10 cubits given, and that he was only assuming \u03c0 <\/strong>for the sake of wanting data that supported his view of a divinely-instituted unified field of measures for both the biblical bath and a molar volume of gas. And, frankly, I could sympathize with this anticipated objection by skeptics, and suggested to David I delay introducing his thoughts into the discussion thread. But after some minutes of David and I discussing this problem of a lower-mark-of-30-cubits-for-some-reason<\/em>, which I found unsatisfactory, I suggested\u00a0he see if somehow the 30-cubit line corresponded to the golden mean. Also known as the golden ratio, this\u00a0is the most discussed mathematical relationship of part-to-the-whole found in pre-modern art and architecture, especially in the Classical and Renaissance eras. It was a guess on my part, but the next morning David called excitedly to tell me that the 30-cubit line did indeed show the golden ratio if the line were placed outside <\/em>the bowl, like a latitudinal line around a globe positioned about 19 degrees lower than the \u2018equator\u2019 (the bowl\u2019s rim) of the half-ball of Solomon\u2019s Sea.5<\/strong><\/p>\n That is, if we could look down inside Solomon\u2019s bowl to the bottom and saw a vertical pole reaching to the height of the brim, let us divide this pole into two line segments. The first segment (x<\/em>) is the height of the 30-cubit line of circumference, the other from there to the brim (y<\/em>). Then x <\/em>divided by y <\/em>is within\u00a01\/3400th of the Golden mean. Put another way, the Golden mean would be exact if the 30-cubit line of circumference were 1\/70th of an inch longer.6 <\/strong>This is well within an acceptable margin of error. From there we surmised that the purpose of the 30-cubit line was to establish a line that divided above and below the two rows of gourd-shaped, brass carvings (KJV \u201cknops\u201d; Heb. lit. colocynth-gourds<\/em>) surrounding the bowl (I Kings 7:24). Incidentally, for purposes of establishing the golden mean in Solomon\u2019s Sea, it does not even matter what the length of the biblical cubit is, since all measurements are relative to the same unit of measure. (Note: the thickness of the bowl is stated to be one handbreadth, which by definition is 1\/7 of a sacred cubit; and thus all the measurements of the Sea are defined in relation to the cubit).7 <\/strong>Interestingly, the sacred cubit used by Solomon was \u201caccording to the old standard\u201d of a cubit, so stated by the writer of II Chronicles 3:3 (see NASB).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Now, the Bible records that Solomon\u2019s Sea of cast bronze was broken up in pieces and taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar upon his destruction of Jerusalem (in 586 BC), following the capture of king Zedekiah in his 11th year. It is not hard to imagine, then, that measurements could have been taken of the Sea before it was broken up (Jer. 52:17), this information taken to Babylon along with the actual fragmented artifact,\u00a0to eventually find its way into the hands of contemporary Grecian mathematicians of the 6th century, such as Pythagoras, who is generally credited with the invention of the golden ratio. Or, since this written <\/em>description in the Old Testament of the golden ratio predates Pythagoras by more than 300 years, the information certainly may have taken another route, especially since the Bible states that \u201call the kings of\u00a0the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, that God had put in his heart,\u201d which\u00a0suggests retinues of persons and observers from different nations, such as the Queen of Sheba (est. 960\u00a0BC), who not only tested Solomon with hard questions but also remarked on the manner of the coming and going of his servants. But especially we are told of the Babylonian <\/em>retinue that visited Hezekiah (in 711\u00a0BC). They came to congratulate Hezekiah on his restoration of health, and Hezekiah showed them all his treasures. Presumably, they may have been told in detail about temple artifacts in the Inner Court of the temple where the Bronze Sea stood. We may suppose, then, that persons among such retinues may have been interested in the architectural and artistic\u00a0accomplishments constructed under Solomon.\u00a0And so we ought to grant that the descriptions of the temple\u2019s architecture and \u2018furniture\u2019 were not just exercises in mathematical draftsmanship. For elsewhere there is concern for the aesthetic\u2014i.e., the mention of blue <\/em>pomegranates as part of the temple\u2019s decorations, a color through which pomegranates do not pass in their course (Ex.\u00a028:33). This shows that more than bald,\u00a0mathematical description was aimed for in describing temple features. And doubtless this is the purpose of the golden ratio, which brilliantly combined both concerns.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, by Piero Dell Francesco, ca. 1452.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n But, again, the point in all this is that either one has to attribute all these mathematical relationships to mathematical coincidences and thus conclude the Bible is \u201crounding off\u00a0numbers\u201d when it comes to Solomon\u2019s Sea, and,\u00a0by extended principle, the 70 weeks of Daniel\u2019s\u00a0prophecy which heralds the coming of the Messiah, or e<\/p>\n lse admit that the Bible often uses specificity of numbers to drive home the point of a Common Designer and Predictor of the Future. One can imagine what position our opponents would take if similarly startling evidence was discovered which supported instead an argument for the rounding off of numbers. I soon found this out when I presented this information about the golden mean on the about.com website under one of the atheist\/agnostic discussion threads. The main detractor I had been engaging reproved me for (in his view) not reading the Bible accurately with its emphasis on \u201cround\u2026 round\u2026 round,\u201d and believed such description must <\/em>mean a cylindrical object. And so I reminded him that the only extra-biblical description of the shape of Solomon\u2019s Sea was Josephus\u2019 statement that it was a hemisphere, while noting, too, that the roundest object with a brim is a hemisphere, not a [cylindrically shaped] soup-can shaped object, since only the former is created by a constant radius from top center to any point on the surface of the object. At this point he and others dismissed my argument based on my\u00a0citation of Velikovsky\u2019s observation of ancient cultures and their calendars of 360 days8 <\/strong>(one of the related discussion points). Thus they committed the common logical fallacies of ad hominem and guilt by association. Their real failure, then, was a refusal to address the voluminous attestations about a 360-day year in the records of at least nine ancient cultures spread throughout the world. It\u2019s sad to note how often this a<\/em>historical approach seems to convince. History is rife, I believe, with many neutral observers who briefly thought about leaving the herd for independent inquiry into religion or the Bible, only to be chased back into the fold by a simple sneer and a laugh from some skeptic with border collie-like enthusiasm. Thus our opponents ignored the math demonstrating the golden mean in Solomon\u2019s Sea, the only\u00a0historical reference (by Josephus) of its exact shape, and Velikovsky\u2019s straight-forward research into the\u00a0calendars used by ancient peoples.<\/p>\n In review, then, critics think: (1) the Bible is rounding off numbers, (2) extra-biblical sources cannot be trusted when the results would lead to a unexpected discovery like the golden ratio, (3) the written description of the golden ratio centuries before Pythagoras must be an accident, and (4) a crafted object divinely authorized in the Old Testament (I Chron. 28:9\u201429:2, esp. 28:13,19 and 29:2)\u2014with a measurement that proves to be the common unit of measure for biblical solid, liquid, and gaseous measures\u2014is not possible. I have to be frank here. This kind of so-called critical approach reminds me of a symposium on evolution reported in a Philadelphia newspaper many years ago, attended by both scientists and mathematicians. Not far into the seminar concerned mathematicians, though sympathetic to\u00a0evolution, nevertheless candidly pointed out that the numbers simply didn\u2019t allow for enough time to make evolution possible. To this the host of the symposium responded that nevertheless it was obvious \u201cevolution must be true, because we\u2019re here.\u201d Despite such brimming confidence, the host\u2019s tautological reasoning reveals the skeptic\u2019s presupposition that any explanation is logical so long as it isn\u2019t metaphysical. And so nowadays we have the idea\u2014thanks go to Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin of Stanford University\u2014that the number of universes is based on what the observer is able to conceive<\/em>. (Apologies to those who thought the number was only in the trillions.)<\/p>\n Such cosmologies are the mutated species of the parent theory that has spawned them, namely,\u00a0evolution, or, more specifically, what evolution has evolved into. This is why the language has become ever subtler, as evolutionary theory has devolved into epicycles of explanations to explain away anomalies. One popular case in recent decades, for example, is so-called \u2018dark matter,\u2019 with its invisible particles doing invisible things to excuse the behavior of gravity, which seems to have forgotten to lessen its effect on the\u00a0\u2018starfish\u2019 arms of galaxies which trail out from galaxies\u2019 centers and so ought to be lagging behind, but\u00a0instead are keeping up their peripheral speed like the outer bands of a vinyl LP around its center label.9\u00a0<\/strong>Thus gravity need not be gravity when and where it conflicts with current evolutionary thought. Consequently, Christians, despite their centuries-long fight against bald materialism<\/em>, wax nostalgic for the former kind of scientific method that once insisted on observation alone <\/em>and<\/u> of the visibly concrete. <\/em>But once the visible <\/em>disappointed Science in delivering a fossil record showing no trans-species evolution, theories like Niles Eldridge\u2019s and S. J. Gould\u2019s punctuated equilibrium showed that fossils were never important to begin with (phew!). One searches in vain for just one evolutionist willing to invoke the kind of mantra his colleagues have used to discredit creationism whenever the ubiquitous fossil record comes up, and apply it\u00a0their own theory. For these have long argued that the sudden burial of masses of organisms and animals merely gives the appearance <\/em>of a Great Flood. But what, then, to say? For this line of argument cannot be applied against the evolutionist, because that would require there actually be <\/em>an appearance of trans- species evolution in the fossil record. But there isn\u2019t any. This is why recent theories have been developed dismissing the fossils\u2019 importance. And now the latest strategy\u2014apparently to diffuse the indisputable design in DNA obvious to anyone but\u00a0a bona fide <\/em>ignoramus\u2014is atheist superman Richard\u00a0Dawkins telling Ben Stein in No Intelligence Allowed <\/em>that it is conceivable life was <\/em>brought here by alien beings, but certainly not by the kind of homophobic God depicted in the Old Testament. And so Dawkins\u2019 final court of appeal is that\u00a0Christian theology cannot be scientific because it doesn\u2019t agree with his atheist ethics<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n While visiting the American Natural History Museum, Stephen J. Gould, age 5, saw the skeleton of Tyrannosaurus Rex. He was so impressed he decided that very moment to spend his life studying fossils.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n But I\u2019m playing unfair. Atheism is not responsible for all this scientific mess per se<\/em>. This is why Ravi Zacaharias freely admitted to a student inquirer that\u00a0there are such things as philanthropic atheists who\u00a0live comparably righteous lives. But as Zacharias also pointed out, atheism doesn\u2019t obligate <\/em>that a man should love his neighbor as himself. This is why some atheists can be philanthropists while others can be mass murderers, like Joseph Stalin. As my brother expresses it\u2014\u201cAtheism doesn\u2019t condone murder, but neither does it condemn it.\u201d And so the problem is not just atheism per se<\/em>, but Individual Choice gone wrong. But thus the twist. Since atheism neither obligates nor necessitates, it is by definition purposeless. And what is purposeless is meaningless<\/em>. Therefore it is not just irony but also absurdity when an atheist takes pride in his atheism, as though atheism had any significance per se<\/em>. Really, there is no reason for an atheist\u00a0to even mention his atheism. It cannot lead him to social lawfulness or lawlessness, or to societal good or\u00a0bad, so what is the point? In fact, atheism cannot recognize that such categories even exist. Thus the dilemma in the Academy: since Science supports evolution for the purpose of dismissing God, what does that say about the significance of evolutionists taking pride in evolution? Yet the rapturous song continues. Thus Sagan in the opening of Cosmos:<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us\u2014there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.<\/p>\n Note the interesting comparison between Sagan\u2019s benedictory-sounding descriptions of the Cosmos\u00a0versus Jesus\u2019 description of himself in Revelation. Whereas Sagan says\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cthe Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be\u201d<\/p>\n Christ said he was the Alpha and the Omega [the Beginning and the Ending]<\/p>\n \u201cwho is, and who was, and who is to come\u2026\u201d (Rev. 1:8 NIV)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/p>\n