Most of the commentaries give the dimensions as being "about 4.5.meters (diameter) and about 13.5 meters circuference".
The passage in IKings never uses the word "circle" but describes a massive bronze casting "round all about" (KJ) "circular in shape" (NIV, and "circular in form" (NSRV). I have yet to see the passage translated as "Huram cast a large bronze sea that was a perfect Euclidean Circle". So, if IKings 7:23 read "and the sea measured 9.7 cubits from rim to rim...and needed a line 30.45 cubits to measure around it", you would be a sold out, on fire, spirit filled Jesus Freak, right?
That may sound sarcastic, but I am trying to illustrate a point.
There is a big difference between "literal" and "innerrant". Whether Huram cast Soloman's Sea with perfect geometric proporations, or the chronicler in IKings rounded his numbers does not reveal anything about God's nature, and how to receive his grace.
The thing that cracks me up on these threads, is that many of the hard "naturalism only" that regularly post on Crevo threads would make the Pharisees of old proud. As would many of those that are diametrically opposed.
So, was God unable to come up with a more precise measuring system then? I probably am not arguing with you here, since you don't seem to be advocating a strict literalist position with respect to the Bible, but there are those who do insist on a strictly literal interpretation. I personally believe that the Bible is inerrant, but that it must be properly interpreted with respect to the time and language in which it was written as well as to the purpose for which it was written. It was not written to be a science text. I have no problem with the fact that a literal reading implies that pi=3, since I don't believe that all of the Bible should be read literally. However, those that believe precisely that, I think, have problems explaining issues such as this. I apologize for mistaking you for a literalist in this regard.