Does the Bible Get π Wrong?

The passage 1 Kings 7:23 famously identifies the value of π as 3, which is clearly incorrect. Many critics of the Bible have pointed to this clear incorrect mathematical fact as evidence that the Bible cannot be true. But hiding within the Hebrew gematria is a surreally accurate approximation of the value of π that was considerably better than anything else available at the time. Was this intended by the authors of this verse though? We asked Dr. Dan McClellan, a scholar of the Bible and religion, for a little help on this one.
Dan McClellan's KZbin Channel:
/ @maklelan
Images Used:
Archimedes
Artist: Andre Thevet
License: Public Domain
Source: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Babylonian Tablet
Yale Babylonian Collection, YBC 07302
Source: cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/arti...
Bible Closed
Artist: crisg
License: Public Domain
Source: www.publicdomainfiles.com/show...
Music:
Top of the Morning by TrackTribe
Little Umbrellas by by TrackTribe
Survive the Montage by RKVC
Punk In Donuts by Hanu Dixit

[@gokulkrishnan2690]

The bible was clearly written by engineers

[@shreychaudhary4477]

unironically this is the most probable take imo. There's no nice way to represent it, so you just say the ratio's "like, three." This is like high school students who spam cos(cos(cos(cos(...)))) and say it converges to "like, 0.7"

[@tomasprochazka6198]

Using Occam's razor, and looking at the history of Bible and Christianity at all ... I think that they just thought Pi is 3.

[@Ryanisthere]

4:10 this seems like a leap here and im not really sure how you got here without arbitrarily dividing them

[@bigmike5842]

Well 1 minute later he says it is arbitrary

[@Ryanisthere]

@@bigmike5842 well i wasnt paying attention 1 minute later

[@aguyontheinternet8436]

@@Ryanisthere at least we're honest

[@DJ_Force]

If the Bible said God proclaimed "π is 3", we might have a story here. As it is, it's a low precision description of an unimportant part of Jewish history.

[@lucaslucas191202]

It's like how the egyptians "knew" the speed of light because the pyramids are built at certain coordinates relating to it. Nevermind that they probably didn't have the same units of length and time as we do. The world is full of coincidences, it is statistically implausible that it wouldn't be.

[@felipeopazo8375]

Nah, nah, nah, they actually the units of length and time we were going to use. They made it specifically for us. A flex across time

[@tommygarson8592]

this was a pretty awesome video. it analyzed multiple conclusions and explored the implications of each one all within a short span of time, giving each one ample time to make a case for itself before moving on to the next. This is fantastic stuff man.

[@scholarsauce]

Thanks a ton! I'm glad you liked it. I hope you'll check out more of my content!

[@BloodSugarLQ]

The value of pi is exactly 3! *gasps*

[@charliedegiulio9951]

3 FACTORIAL???

[@aguyontheinternet8436]

no that's tau

[@bluemarblescience]

Excellent video SS. The state of Indiana came dangerously close to defining pi to be exactly 3.2 in the late 1800's. Luckily, common sense prevailed and the bill never passed. It might be better if we just stuck with 3.14159 - seems to work lol.

[@scholarsauce]

For sure! I've thought of making a video about that event too. Maybe for next pi day!

[@robertveith6383]

*@Scholar Sauce* -- I think I can explain it. A bowl has thickness. Picture the inner radius to the inside of the bowl and picture the outer radius to the outside of the bowl. The inner circumference divided by the inner radius equals pi, but the inner circumference divided by the outer radius could equal 3, if the thickness of the bowl was uniform and correct.

[@scholarsauce]

This could only happen if they measured the diameter from outer edge to outer edge and the circumference of the inner edge and then, only for a very specific, very accurate thickness. Specifically, the thickness would have to be exactly [(π-3)/π]*10 ≈ 0.4507... cubits (the 10 is really the outer diameter, but in this case, that value was stated as 10 cubits). That's an awful lot of work to avoid using a number other than 3 and requires another transcendental number to enter the mix. There's also no evidence that this is what happened, especially since the thickness of the bowl is never mentioned in the passage. Hence this thickness idea seems pretty far fetched to me. A better explanation is that it was just common practice to approximate π with 3 back then, especially in literature that was not intended to be a technical document. Any builder back then would know that the size of the circumference is a little bigger than 3 and it would be sufficient to communicate the point. We do the same thing, by the way, we just choose slightly more accurate approximations (in fact, we have to). For example, both 22/7 and 3.14 have just as many incorrect digits as 3 does (i.e., infinite), so would it really have mattered if they used 3 or not? Ultimately, I don't think there's anything really clever going on here and it's kind of a nothing-burger for or against the Bible. Especially after talking to Dan McClellan, it is unlikely that any of the complex gematria is intentional (as remarkable as it is) and, similarly, I would argue that the thickness thing you mention is even more unlikely. This is simply an author using an approximation that was sufficient for their rhetorical purposes in this passage and nothing more. There's no need to find a fix for it as it really isn't an error, but just a convenient and often used at the time approximation. So, it neither supports nor hinders any argument for the truth of the Bible. Thanks for watching and for taking the time to comment. I hope that you'll find some of my other content interesting too!

[@danieljennings3528]

@scholarsauce I like the gematria theory, but I do agree that it almost certainly wasn't intentional. So there are only two possibilities. Either it's mere coincidence (seems fairly probable that it was just coincidence), or else God put the number there (less probable, but you never know). Here's another interesting one I came across: the Greek phrase "Iesous Christos" (value 2368), when divided by the Hebrew phrase "Yeshua ha Masiach" (value 754), comes out to 3.140583554376658... (another good approximation of pi, though not quite as good as 111/106 × 3). Ignoring the gematria, I'm inclined to go with the thickness theory which @robertveith6383 pointed out. If I'm reading the text correctly, I think the thickness is in fact mentioned (it comes a few verses later, in verse 26). I am not very familiar with this particular passage but it sounds like it's saying that the basin's wall (or perhaps its lip?) was a "hand breadth" thick (3½ inches, give or take). Subtracting that from both sides, the diameter is reduced to maybe around 9.6 cubits, which then yields a circumference of around 30.16 cubits, which rounds down to 30 (since all the measurements seem to be rounded to the nearest half cubit). This does not need to be calculated; it just needs to be measured with a rope or measuring tape. Here's the thing: I really don't think the author calculated anything. Nor do I think the craftsman calculated anything. I think the craftsman probably just constructed a circle with the correct diameter using a compass. (I do not know what sorts of techniques would have been used to make a three-dimensional basin, but it's fairly easy to construct a two-dimensional circle from just a radius.) Then after he finished making the basin, somebody physically measured it and the author wrote down the measurement. But if this is what happened, then 30 really doesn't fit. This is because the actual measurement would round to 31½ (maybe 31), not 30. I suppose there could be other ways to account for it (like maybe the basin wasn't a perfect circle? or maybe the numbers have been tweaked for symbolic purposes?) but the if we take the thickness into account then the numbers just work out so nicely, so I think that's gotta be it!

[@knightrider585]

The Bible is an ancient collection of books filled with stories and symbolism. The numbers 70 and 72 are routinely used interchangeably as numbers meaning completion. Other numbers are used to draw parallels between different stories, 40 days and nights of rain causing Noah's flood, 40 years in the desert for Moses and company. From a symbolic, rather than some anachronistic modern mathematical/engineering perspective, pointing out a circle has a circumference that is about three times its diameter makes more sense with the rest of the story. (Three is also one of those symbolic numbers). Approximation like this can be seen as like a farmer not harvesting absolutely every corner of his field so the widow, orphan, or traveller might gather some fallen grain left behind at the edges (see Deuteronomy 24:19). The Bible is about symbolism not engineering.

[@hqTheToaster]

Actually, I measured the area under a certain curve in Desmos that uses some nested integration involving e, and got this: 2.3259184973481964 ... and if you multiply by e up 1/4, you get roughly 2.98. Multiply by 10, you get 29.8. Round up, you get 30. So in a way, maybe they were trying to measure a slightly caved in shape that only looks like a circle. My guess is they were told to look at the perimeter but subtract a shadow of some sort.

[@jessthayne6430]

I like the pi tie pun

[@TryThinking]

This only just showed up on my timeline. Your friend “‘BlueMarble”’science’” did a video last year where he verified the value of spherical π to be 3, perhaps the Bible was correct after all, it has been checked and verified by the top source for spherical π and where it came from.

[@briankleinschmidt3664]

The number of circumferences in a circle is 6.2. . . not 3.14. That is where the significance of 6 and 7 come from. You will spiral down if you only have six circumferences. You must add a seventh if you want to spiral up. In order to add the seventh, you must follow God's covenant.

[@user-ro2tm3dp8x]

I think it might just be a coincidence just a little bit

[@drivers99]

Pi? Oh you mean Tau/2 😊

[@scholarsauce]

Woah! Thems are fighting words. Lol. I actually have a video on my channel of a debate with the founder of the tau movement Dr. Bob Palais, who's a really great friend of mine. I think you might enjoy it.

[@drivers99]

@@scholarsauceNo way! Checking it out now.

[@drivers99]

@@scholarsauceJust noticed you refer to this in your changing whiteboard drawings lol.

[@AndogZA]

"In Ancient Israel" Why were people doing Maths in some random dude??

[@Ballacha]

why would anyone try to derive scientific meaning from a bronze age novel about a magical tyrant lmao

[@TeamBonkersConkers]

British Pi day is the 22nd of July i.e. 22/7 22/7 > 3.14 ;)

[@matthijssmulders3432]

Architects still think pi is 3 lol, just as g = 10, e= 3 etc

[@joeyhardin5903]

As you pointed out, due to how convoluted the method is, there isn't really any way you can conclude that the authors of Kings secretly knew, and intentionally hid a really good approximation for pi in the book. However, as a believer of divine inspiration of the Bible, it's not a stretch in my opinion to claim that God himself was the one who hid a pi approximation in the scripture, knowing that scholars like you would find it. Perhaps other believers would agree, perhaps not.

[@GaryIV]

It's worth noting that if a divine omniscience were to hide a Pi approximation in scripture for the sake of future findings, said omniscience would much more likely hide an actual approximation, rather than hiding a convoluted ratio that diverges from Pi after 4 digits, especially if the goal is to clue humans into his existence. 111/106 is not even close to the best 3-digit fraction approximation for Pi which could be hidden this way, 355/113 ≈ 3.1415929 is much better, and an omniscience would clearly know this, along with any other of the infinite better ways to represent Pi as a way of proving divinity.

[@joeyhardin5903]

@@GaryIV Yes, good point. I personally wouldn't go as far as to say the pi approx. is a divine message for the reasons you stated, but I'm sure plenty of people would be open to it

[@scholarsauce]

I agree. If the Bible is inspired of God, surely its purpose is not to convey any scientific truth, but to teach about God and what He wants His people to do. And even those messages are pretty inconsistent through the book and so even if there are messages from God in there, I think you have to be pretty wary when reading it to determine just what is and what was meant. A lot of really bad stuff through history has been justified by various interpretations of the Bible, some interpretations that even Jesus in the New Testament takes issue with. At any rate, hiding a good though not optimal approximation of π in some convoluted mess seems like a waste of time on his part. So while, yes, if you assume that an omniscient God exists, it is certainly within His power to do this, but it's also almost certainly outside His interests, unless God is some kind of math nerd with a cheeky streak. Mostly, I like using this reference in pi vs tau debates to make the silly claim afterwards that "If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for me!"

[@error-4518]

fuckin hell I didn't pay attention to this since I watched this as background noise, and now I realize this was some bible believer bullshit number theory. Give me my view back.

[@scholarsauce]

If you think that, then you still didn't pay attention. I pointed out some weird use of Hebrew gematria that has sometimes been proposed to explain why the Bible apparently got the value of π correct, then I point out that that's nonsense and purely coincidental (courtesy of a communication with an expert scholar on the bible and religion). I then explain that the value of π given in this verse bears no weight to either the argument for or against the Bible being true, because using the value of 3 for π in a rhetorical essay was totally consistent with common practice at the time that that document was historically written. So that value of 3 would be consistent whether the Bible was divinely inspired, a complete fabrication, or somewhere in between. The result of this whole thing is that the value of π given in this verse essentially means nothing. Whether I believe in the Bible or not is immaterial; I certainly wouldn't use this verse as evidence either way. Even if it is a bit of a remarkable coincidence that this convoluted nonsense happens to produce a very accurate approximation of the value of π, it's still convoluted nonsense.

[@robertveith6383]

Stop withyour major cursing! It is ignorant and needless.