Science and the Bible: Pi

In modern mathematical calculations, pi, which denotes the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is generally a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. It is actually more accurate to say that pi can be carried to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even 3.1415926535 can be used.

Bible skeptics often conclude that the writers of 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the circular molten sea in the courtyard of Solomon's temple is described as ten cubits from brim to brim and "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it," can't be correct because it is impossible to have a circle with these two values. How, the skeptic asks, could God's word, being written under inspiration, be so inaccurate?

The decimal point didn't exist at the time; it wasn't until about 250 BCE that Archimedes discovered a method to approximate the value of pi by using polygons inscribed and circumscribed around a circle, calculating the perimeters of these polygons as upper and lower bounds for the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of the circle.

Before that, the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it as was then invariably the practice, by its radius or semi-diameter of five cubits, which, being applied six times around the perimeter or 'brim,' would give the thirty cubits stated. The Bible only gave the dimensions of the Sea in the usual language that everyone would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. (2 Chronicles 2:13-14) He would have been aware that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more.

The molten sea was 10 cubits (15 feet) in diameter, and it took a line of 30 cubits (45 feet) to encompass it. A ratio of one to three was adequate for the sake of the record.​

 

[NoHolyCows]

In modern mathematical calculations, pi, which denotes the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is generally a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. It is actually more accurate to say that pi can be carried to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even 3.1415926535 can be used.

Yes, π ≈ 3.1415926535… is mathematically correct. The first known rigorous bounds for π (3.1408 < π < 3.1429) were calculated by Archimedes around 250 BCE, but long before him, both Egyptians (π ≈ 3.16 from the Rhind Papyrus, c. 1650 BCE) and Babylonians (π ≈ 3.125, c. 1900 BCE) used closer approximations than 3. These civilizations predate the writing of 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles by centuries. So while the statement about modern approximations is true, it’s important to acknowledge that more accurate values were already circulating well before the Bible’s authors recorded π = 3.

Bible skeptics often conclude that the writers of 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, where the circular molten sea in the courtyard of Solomon's temple is described as ten cubits from brim to brim and "it took a line of thirty cubits to circle all around it," can't be correct because it is impossible to have a circle with these two values. How, the skeptic asks, could God's word, being written under inspiration, be so inaccurate?

The problem isn’t that humans recorded an imprecise measurement; it’s that some claim this text is the inerrant word of God. If the Bible is to be treated as divinely inspired, then even a small mathematical error undermines that claim. The diameter of 10 cubits implies a circumference of approximately 31.4 cubits—not 30. If this were just a rough architectural note, no issue. But if we’re told the text is divinely precise, then approximating π as 3 is demonstrably wrong.

The decimal point didn't exist at the time; it wasn't until about 250 BCE that Archimedes discovered a method to approximate the value of pi by using polygons inscribed and circumscribed around a circle, calculating the perimeters of these polygons as upper and lower bounds for the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of the circle.

True, the decimal point didn’t exist—but that’s a red herring. Accurate fractions and geometric methods existed long before decimals. The Babylonians and Egyptians both managed to calculate π to within 1% of the modern value without decimals. Archimedes improved upon that. The lack of decimal notation does not justify recording π as 3; ancient people could and did calculate it better using geometry. The Hebrews simply didn’t reflect this in their text—which is fine, unless you’re claiming divine knowledge.

Before that, the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it as was then invariably the practice, by its radius or semi-diameter of five cubits

This is speculative and lacks historical support. There is no ancient text, drawing, or archaeological evidence that builders “measured circumference by laying out the radius six times.” In fact, the very verse says a line (measuring cord) was used to encircle it, which indicates a standard method of measuring the curved perimeter directly. Invoking a radius-based measuring system is an ad hoc excuse, created after the fact to defend the verse. It’s not based on any known practice in ancient engineering.

The Bible only gave the dimensions of the Sea in the usual language that everyone would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. (2 Chronicles 2:13-14)

If the Bible is giving measurements in colloquial or practical terms “everyone would understand,” then the skeptics’ case is proven: this is a human document using human approximations, not divine math. No problem if you treat the Bible as a culturally situated record. But if you say the Bible is scientifically flawless, then imprecise measurements undermine that. You can’t have it both ways: either this is divinely inspired perfection, or it’s a functional approximation like every other ancient text.

He would have been aware that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more.

So he knew 30 wasn’t the correct circumference? Then why didn’t he say so—or why didn’t the biblical text say so? This admission shows that the text knowingly reflects an underestimate, and if divine inspiration was guiding the authors, it’s curious that a known imprecision was included instead of corrected. This point reinforces the notion that the Bible reflects human knowledge, not divine omniscience.

The molten sea was 10 cubits (15 feet) in diameter, and it took a line of 30 cubits (45 feet) to encompass it. A ratio of one to three was adequate for the sake of the record.

“Adequate” is not the same as correct. If this was meant to be a rough estimate for narrative or architectural purposes, that’s totally understandable—but then you concede that the Bible contains non-literal approximations, which skeptics have said all along. The problem only arises when people claim this record is precise or scientifically flawless. You can’t claim infallibility and then excuse factual inaccuracies as being “adequate.”

NHC

 

[DLH]

Yes, π ≈ 3.1415926535… is mathematically correct. The first known rigorous bounds for π (3.1408 < π < 3.1429) were calculated by Archimedes around 250 BCE, but long before him, both Egyptians (π ≈ 3.16 from the Rhind Papyrus, c. 1650 BCE) and Babylonians (π ≈ 3.125, c. 1900 BCE) used closer approximations than 3. These civilizations predate the writing of 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles by centuries. So while the statement about modern approximations is true, it’s important to acknowledge that more accurate values were already circulating well before the Bible’s authors recorded π = 3.

While I agree that π was used more accurately than necessary in the case of the Biblical case of Hiram and the courtyard, I think you miss the point. It wasn't a math contest between Babylon, Egypt and Israel.

The problem isn’t that humans recorded an imprecise measurement; it’s that some claim this text is the inerrant word of God. If the Bible is to be treated as divinely inspired, then even a small mathematical error undermines that claim. The diameter of 10 cubits implies a circumference of approximately 31.4 cubits—not 30. If this were just a rough architectural note, no issue. But if we’re told the text is divinely precise, then approximating π as 3 is demonstrably wrong.

The Jews thought that Jesus would come and be a mighty warrior king delivering Israel from their oppressors. Americans Christians think something similar. That America is God's nation. God doesn't have a nation. I used to think that God's kingdom would open up the floodgates of scientific knowledge and technology, but now I'm not so sure, I'm inclined to doubt it. The Creator of the universe, of time, doesn't need to impress you with math, science or war.

The molten sea in the courtyard of the Temple was acceptable to Jehovah.

 

[NoHolyCows]

While I agree that π was used more accurately than necessary in the case of the Biblical case of Hiram and the courtyard, I think you miss the point. It wasn't a math contest between Babylon, Egypt and Israel.

You’re right—it wasn’t a math contest between ancient civilizations. But that’s precisely the point skeptics are making.

We’re not expecting ancient Israel to outdo Babylon or Egypt in mathematics. We’re questioning the claim—often made by apologists—that the Bible is divinely inspired, scientifically accurate, or free from factual error. If the Bible is a human document, reflecting the knowledge and culture of its time, then of course we wouldn’t expect a precise value of π. But if it’s the literal word of God, why would it record an incorrect ratio that even human civilizations before Israel had improved upon?

This isn’t about boasting whose ancient math was better—it’s about the internal consistency of a claim: If God authored or inspired the text, He would’ve known π ≠ 3. If a human did, an approximation like 3 is exactly what we’d expect.

So the issue is not “Why didn’t Israel win the math contest?” It’s “Why does a book that some claim is perfect contain a math error that even imperfect civilizations had already improved upon?”

The Jews thought that Jesus would come and be a mighty warrior king delivering Israel from their oppressors. Americans Christians think something similar. That America is God's nation. God doesn't have a nation.

Agreed—many people hold nationalistic or political interpretations of their faith that don’t necessarily reflect the original texts or broader theological truths. But this is a redirection, not a defense of the specific issue we were discussing.

The conversation was about scientific and mathematical accuracy in the Bible, specifically regarding the molten sea and the value of π. While your point about theological misconceptions is important in its own right, it doesn’t address the original claim skeptics are engaging with: Does the Bible reflect divine omniscience or human limitations?

You’re essentially shifting from a claim of inerrant truth to a broader statement about theological humility—which is fine, but it’s a change of subject. The critique of π = 3 still stands unless you’re willing to concede that the text is not meant to be scientifically or mathematically flawless, but rather contextually human.

I used to think that God's kingdom would open up the floodgates of scientific knowledge and technology, but now I'm not so sure, I'm inclined to doubt it. The Creator of the universe, of time, doesn't need to impress you with math, science or war.

This is a profound and honest statement, and it shifts the frame of discussion.

You’re saying God doesn’t need to impress us with science or math, and therefore shouldn’t be judged by those metrics. That’s a valid theological position—but again, it moves the goalposts.

If God doesn’t concern Himself with scientific precision in scripture, then the Bible must be understood as a human attempt to convey divine truths, not as a scientifically infallible document. And if you’re affirming that, then we’re in agreement: The molten sea’s measurements are human approximations, not divine math.

But if someone still insists the Bible is without error in every way—including scientific fact—then this argument won’t hold. Either the Bible is perfect, or it’s contextual. And if it’s contextual, then the mathematical imprecision in the molten sea is entirely expected and unproblematic—as long as we stop claiming it’s infallible in that regard.

The molten sea in the courtyard of the Temple was acceptable to Jehovah.

Acceptability to God is a theological judgment. From a skeptic’s view, it’s entirely reasonable to believe the molten sea was acceptable for its religious and ritual function.

But again, this doesn’t answer the original objection. Skeptics aren’t saying the sea wasn’t big enough, beautiful enough, or sacred enough. We’re pointing out that the measurements described in the Bible yield a mathematically incorrect ratio. That matters only if you’re claiming the Bible is mathematically precise and divinely dictated.

So yes, the molten sea could have fulfilled its intended purpose. But that doesn’t validate the math, and it doesn’t defend the claim of scriptural inerrancy—unless you’re redefining “inerrancy” to exclude empirical truth.

NHC

 

[DLH]

We’re questioning the claim—often made by apologists—that the Bible is divinely inspired, scientifically accurate, or free from factual error.

No, we aren't. At least I'm not. Here I'm simply stating that skeptics often think that the Bible was supposed to invent pi when what was used was sufficient. This isn't a case of scientific accuracy or factual error. I can show you where the Bible is actually erroneous. That isn't the issue here.

If the Bible is a human document, reflecting the knowledge and culture of its time, then of course we wouldn’t expect a precise value of π. But if it’s the literal word of God, why would it record an incorrect ratio that even human civilizations before Israel had improved upon?

It wasn't necessary. Why doesn't God wave a magic wand and fix all of ancient Israel's immediate problems more relevant than a mathematical curiosity? Why can't God see into the future? Why couldn't Jesus just have healed everyone and gotten rid of everyone else? We can speculate what God could and couldn't do mathematically, but it seems pointless to me.

This isn’t about boasting whose ancient math was better—it’s about the internal consistency of a claim: If God authored or inspired the text, He would’ve known π ≠ 3. If a human did, an approximation like 3 is exactly what we’d expect.

God through math? No.

So the issue is not “Why didn’t Israel win the math contest?” It’s “Why does a book that some claim is perfect contain a math error that even imperfect civilizations had already improved upon?”

It isn't an error. It was an effective and sufficient measurement commonly used. It worked.

Agreed—many people hold nationalistic or political interpretations of their faith that don’t necessarily reflect the original texts or broader theological truths. But this is a redirection, not a defense of the specific issue we were discussing.

What issue? Not the one I presented nor the one you suppose. You're just doing mathematically what the nationalistic or political do in your quote above.

The conversation was about scientific and mathematical accuracy in the Bible, specifically regarding the molten sea and the value of π. While your point about theological misconceptions is important in its own right, it doesn’t address the original claim skeptics are engaging with: Does the Bible reflect divine omniscience or human limitations?

The Bible doesn't teach that its translation is divinely inspired or that God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. That's theological and religious nonsense, not Biblically supported.

You’re essentially shifting from a claim of inerrant truth to a broader statement about theological humility—which is fine, but it’s a change of subject. The critique of π = 3 still stands unless you’re willing to concede that the text is not meant to be scientifically or mathematically flawless, but rather contextually human.

Inerrant truth had nothing to do with it, nor theological humility. We're talking about practicality. If you were on a modern-day construction site and two men were arguing about pi while the other constructed the hot tub God would pick the guy finishing the job, not the two going on about pi.

I used to think that God's kingdom would open up the floodgates of scientific knowledge and technology, but now I'm not so sure, I'm inclined to doubt it. The Creator of the universe, of time, doesn't need to impress you with math, science or war.

This is a profound and honest statement, and it shifts the frame of discussion.

You’re saying God doesn’t need to impress us with science or math, and therefore shouldn’t be judged by those metrics. That’s a valid theological position—but again, it moves the goalposts.

God created the universe. Time. Space. He isn't impressed with pi.

If God doesn’t concern Himself with scientific precision in scripture, then the Bible must be understood as a human attempt to convey divine truths, not as a scientifically infallible document. And if you’re affirming that, then we’re in agreement: The molten sea’s measurements are human approximations, not divine math.

That's it.

But if someone still insists the Bible is without error in every way—including scientific fact—then this argument won’t hold. Either the Bible is perfect, or it’s contextual. And if it’s contextual, then the mathematical imprecision in the molten sea is entirely expected and unproblematic—as long as we stop claiming it’s infallible in that regard.

The Bible is the fallible imperfect translation of God's infallible perfect word to a people who lived long ago and far away. It isn't mathematic or scientific divine revelation. So, in order to make the argument you are making you would first have to demonstrate that you have the merit to make it. For example, create your own universe with living beings on it that don't exist. Or maybe even demonstrate that is what God did, which I would like to see. Then you would have to demonstrate infallible science and math. That you know will endure over thousands of years without correction or error. That isn't what science does. And even if it did how would you know it? Because science or God says it?

The molten sea in the courtyard of the Temple was acceptable to Jehovah.

Acceptability to God is a theological judgment. From a skeptic’s view, it’s entirely reasonable to believe the molten sea was acceptable for its religious and ritual function.

Theological judgment that is demonstrable. We know the alleged God of the aforementioned portions of the Bible approved of the alleged molten sea in the courtyard of the temple under the supervision of Hiram. Anything beyond that would be, at best, theological speculation. Conjecture.

But again, this doesn’t answer the original objection. Skeptics aren’t saying the sea wasn’t big enough, beautiful enough, or sacred enough. We’re pointing out that the measurements described in the Bible yield a mathematically incorrect ratio. That matters only if you’re claiming the Bible is mathematically precise and divinely dictated.

So yes, the molten sea could have fulfilled its intended purpose. But that doesn’t validate the math, and it doesn’t defend the claim of scriptural inerrancy—unless you’re redefining “inerrancy” to exclude empirical truth.

No claim of scriptural inerrancy in translation was made by me or the Bible. In fact, I would know better than to make such a claim. I don't see, though, how you can argue that there is a mathematical error. I'm not arguing that God is, like me, not very good with math, or that God wasn't capable of relating to the people who may or may not have actually had available the knowledge you've suggested was available in Egypt and Babylon. Do you see what I'm saying? You can't demonstrate that Egypt and Babylon's gods were better directing their people and so their gods must have been the math gods because it isn't necessary. None of it makes sense to me no matter how I look at it.

If the skeptical argument is that if the Bible was divinely inspired it would have blown us away in math is just silly.

 

[NoHolyCows]

No, we aren't. At least I'm not. Here I'm simply stating that skeptics often think that the Bible was supposed to invent pi when what was used was sufficient. This isn't a case of scientific accuracy or factual error. I can show you where the Bible is actually erroneous. That isn't the issue here.

Respectfully, this is a misrepresentation. No one is claiming the Bible should have invented pi. The issue is simpler: the Bible presents a numerical relationship (diameter 10, circumference 30) that yields π = 3, which is mathematically incorrect. Whether that value was “sufficient” for construction doesn’t change the fact that it’s false.

If you’re saying the Bible sometimes contains errors but just not this one, that’s a different claim—but then the burden is on you to show why this mathematically wrong ratio is not an error. Because by every modern and ancient geometric standard, it is.

It wasn't necessary. Why doesn't God wave a magic wand and fix all of ancient Israel's immediate problems more relevant than a mathematical curiosity? Why can't God see into the future? Why couldn't Jesus just have healed everyone and gotten rid of everyone else? We can speculate what God could and couldn't do mathematically, but it seems pointless to me.

This response avoids the issue entirely. Whether or not God needed to fix Israel’s problems or whether pi is important to Him doesn’t address the central question: Is the biblical value correct?

We’re not speculating on what God should or shouldn’t do. We’re pointing out that if the Bible is presenting divine truth, even in small things, then presenting π as 3 is objectively incorrect. Brushing that off as “unnecessary” may make it feel unimportant, but it doesn’t make it true.

It isn't an error. It was an effective and sufficient measurement commonly used. It worked.

Something can be “effective” and still be wrong. The approximation worked in practice—fine. But a mathematical error isn’t excused because it’s convenient. Saying “π = 3” is a falsehood whether or not it got the job done.

This is the difference between practical adequacy and factual correctness. The molten sea may have functioned well, but that doesn’t make 3 the correct value of pi. The Bible reports incorrect math. That’s a factual error, even if it was functionally harmless.

What issue? Not the one I presented nor the one you suppose. You're just doing mathematically what the nationalistic or political do in your quote above.

This is a category error. Math is not ideology. Pointing out that 30 divided by 10 is not pi isn’t political—it’s geometry. You’re accusing me of doing what nationalists do (distorting texts for ideological gain), while I’m doing the opposite: testing a claim against observable, universal truth.

If a circle has a 10-unit diameter and a 30-unit circumference, then π = 3. That’s false. That’s the issue—nothing ideological, just math.

The Bible doesn't teach that its translation is divinely inspired or that God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. That's theological and religious nonsense, not Biblically supported.

I appreciate your honesty here. But if you reject inerrancy, divine omniscience, and the idea that the Bible speaks with ultimate authority, then you’re already halfway to the skeptical position.

You’re admitting the Bible is fallible, human, and not always accurate. That’s a major concession. If that’s the case, then yes—this is just another imperfect detail from an imperfect record. That’s what skeptics are saying. You’ve already agreed.

Inerrant truth had nothing to do with it, nor theological humility. We're talking about practicality. If you were on a modern-day construction site and two men were arguing about pi while the other constructed the hot tub God would pick the guy finishing the job, not the two going on about pi.

You’re confusing pragmatism with truth. Sure, the guy building the hot tub might be more useful in the moment—but that doesn’t make 3 a valid value for pi.

We’re not arguing over who’s more useful—we’re pointing out a mathematical inconsistency in a text some people claim is divinely authored. If the Bible is just practical, then no problem. But if it’s supposed to be accurate, then this passage doesn’t hold up. Practicality doesn’t override factual accuracy.

God created the universe. Time. Space. He isn't impressed with pi.

Sure. But again—that’s not the issue. No one claimed God needed to be impressed with pi. The issue is that if God inspired this text, why does it present false math?

You’re changing the subject. This isn’t about God’s ego—it’s about whether a mathematical statement in scripture is correct. It isn’t. Whether God cares or not doesn’t make the numbers add up.

The Bible is the fallible imperfect translation of God's infallible perfect word to a people who lived long ago and far away. It isn't mathematic or scientific divine revelation. So, in order to make the argument you are making you would first have to demonstrate that you have the merit to make it. For example, create your own universe with living beings on it that don't exist. Or maybe even demonstrate that is what God did, which I would like to see. Then you would have to demonstrate infallible science and math. That you know will endure over thousands of years without correction or error. That isn't what science does. And even if it did how would you know it? Because science or God says it?

This is an attempt to shield scripture from critique by raising the bar of criticism to divine levels. That’s not how truth works.

You don’t need to create a universe to recognize a math error. You don’t need to be God to know π ≠ 3. This “prove you’re God first” tactic is just rhetorical smoke. Anyone with a calculator can show the math is wrong. This is not about merit—it’s about facts.

You’ve already said the Bible is fallible and imperfect. If so, then it can contain errors—and this is one of them. You don’t need to invent a new world to point that out.

Theological judgment that is demonstrable. We know the alleged God of the aforementioned portions of the Bible approved of the alleged molten sea in the courtyard of the temple under the supervision of Hiram. Anything beyond that would be, at best, theological speculation. Conjecture.

No disagreement there. But whether God approved of the molten sea isn’t the point. The issue is whether the measurement described in the text is mathematically correct.

It’s not. That’s not speculation—that’s a calculation. So whatever God may have approved of is beside the point. The math remains wrong.

No claim of scriptural inerrancy in translation was made by me or the Bible. In fact, I would know better than to make such a claim. I don't see, though, how you can argue that there is a mathematical error

You just admitted the Bible is fallible. So a mathematical error should be easy to acknowledge. If π = 3 is recorded in the text—and it is—then that’s an error. It’s not opinion. It’s math. You can say it doesn’t matter, or that it’s minor, or that it worked—but you can’t say it’s correct.

I'm not arguing that God is, like me, not very good with math, or that God wasn't capable of relating to the people who may or may not have actually had available the knowledge you've suggested was available in Egypt and Babylon. Do you see what I'm saying?

Yes, I see. You’re saying God could’ve done better, but didn’t—which supports my point. You’re acknowledging that the knowledge existed, but the text doesn’t reflect it. So again, this is human-level approximation, not divine insight.

You can't demonstrate that Egypt and Babylon's gods were better directing their people and so their gods must have been the math gods because it isn't necessary. None of it makes sense to me no matter how I look at it.

No one is saying their gods were better. What we are saying is: those civilizations had more accurate knowledge, and the Bible didn’t reflect it. That undermines claims that the Bible contains superior divine revelation.

This isn’t about divine competition—it’s about what’s true. And here, the Bible simply reflects an outdated approximation.

If the skeptical argument is that if the Bible was divinely inspired it would have blown us away in math is just silly.

That’s not the argument. The argument is: If the Bible is divinely inspired, it shouldn’t contain demonstrable factual errors. This is one. A circle with a 10-unit diameter and a 30-unit circumference implies π = 3, which is wrong.

You’ve already conceded the Bible is imperfect. That means it can be factually wrong. So we agree—this is human, not divine. That’s the only point skeptics are making.

NHC

 

[steve_bank]

PI has along history and is known to have appeared in several places in he ancient world.

No one disputes Jews existed here on the forum. That in their writings PI is mentioned is no surprise and does not serve to prove creationism or any other supernatural claims in the bible are true.

Pi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Surviving approximations of π prior to the 2nd century AD are accurate to one or two decimal places at best. The earliest written approximations are found in Babylon and Egypt, both within one percent of the true value. In Babylon, a clay tablet dated 1900–1600 BC has a geometrical statement that, by implication, treats π as ⁠25/8⁠ = 3.125.[40] In Egypt, the Rhind Papyrus, dated around 1650 BC but copied from a document dated to 1850 BC, has a formula for the area of a circle that treats π as ( 16 9 ) 2 ≈ 3.16 {\textstyle {\bigl (}{\frac {16}{9}}{\bigr )}^{2}\approx 3.16}.[31][40] Although some pyramidologists have theorized that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built with proportions related to π, this theory is not widely accepted by scholars.[41] In the Shulba Sutras of Indian mathematics, dating to an oral tradition from the 1st or 2nd millennium BC, approximations are given which have been variously interpreted as approximately 3.08831, 3.08833, 3.004, 3, or 3.125.[42]

No, ancient Jews did not invent pi, but the concept of pi and its approximation can be traced back to ancient civilizations like Egypt and Babylon, with the Greeks, including Archimedes, making significant advancements in its understanding.
Here's a more detailed explanation:

Ancient Civilizations and Early Approximations:
The concept of the relationship between a circle's diameter and circumference, which is the basis for pi, emerged in ancient Egypt and Babylon around 2500 BCE.

Egyptian and Babylonian Approximations:
These civilizations approximated pi to be around 3.125.
Archimedes' Contribution:
The Greek mathematician Archimedes (287–212 BC) made significant strides in understanding pi, calculating its value to be between 3 1/7 and 3 10/71.
Biblical Mention:
The Hebrew Bible, specifically in 1 Kings 7:23, mentions a pool in King Solomon's Temple with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits, which implies a value of pi close to 3.

If you construct a circle say with a peg in the ground and a string the relationship of diameter to circumference will be PI even if you do not know what PI is. So, the biblical reference does not mean Jews knew PI, but theymay have.

Again DLH does not know enough history to get a context for what is in the bible.

The history of math has any threads through many cultures.

Finding the areas of geometric figures had practical importance as much as it has today. Areas were used in construction projects and agriculture.