Ages in Genesis 5

[Guest Scott]

Thirty ages of people are mentioned in Genesis 5.   

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 ¶ And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own alikeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

9 ¶ And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:

11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

12 ¶ And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:

13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:

14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.

15 ¶ And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:

16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:

17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.

18 ¶ And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:

19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.

21 ¶ And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:

24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:

26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:

27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

28 ¶ And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:

29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.

30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:

31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.

32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Many say that the ages are all literal.  Some say they are missing a decimal point.  I don't buy either one of these explanations for the reasons below.

In any cases the patterns of the numbers are interesting (which leads me to believe that there is something else to these numbers than only ages and they carry some sort of symbolic meaning).

What type of patterns do you see in the numbers?

One of the easiest to see patterns is that with the exception of Methusala, each number ends with 0, 2, 5, and 7.  Methusala's age ends with 9.

So, if these are indeed real ages, what would be the chances that a set of random numbers only ending with those specific numbers rather than having them more evenly scattered?  If anyone is curious it is about 1 in one million.  That's a really small chance that the numbers are random ages and that's just looking at the simplest pattern.

It gets more interesting.

Here's another pattern that is harder to see at first glance, but that some writers have pointed out (and the patten in this case the pattern is both certain and real):

Each of the 30 numbers can be expressed in combinations of days and months of the two most sacred or significant numbers amoung the ancient Hebrews;  those numbers being 7 and 60.  (Interestingly, 60 is also very significant in ancient Mesopotanian numbers, because they base their mathematics on sixty (which is why we use 60 seconds to a minute and 60 minutes to an hour even today). 

When looking at this pattern (which all of the numbers fit), the chances that the 30 numbers are just random ages move from about 1 in a million from the first pattern to infinitesimally small when taking in account both patterns.

Here's a third pattern that would have to be an incredible coincidence for the numbers to be random.

If you add up the ages of all of the patriarch's, including Noah, you have 8575 years, which just happens to be 5 X 5 X 7 X 7 X 7.   5 and 7 are both very sacred numbers in Hebrew since 5 represents God's grace and 7 represents the perfectness and holiness of God.

Here's yet a forth pattern that would have to be even more of an incredible coincidence for the numbers to be random.

Every single one of the ages can be expressed in either multiples of 5 by themselves or a multiple of 5 added to another multiple of 7 (see above for the sacred nature of the numbers five and seven).

For example, Methusala's 969 years is 191 X 5 + 7 + 7.  Jared's is 191 X 5 + 7.  Seth's is 185 X 5 +7.  Lamech's 777 is 154 X 5 +7.

The chances of random numbers all fitting the above four patterns are so infinitesimally small that they almost certainly aren't random.  

Some authors have proposed other theories and patterns showing order, but I don't think these are indisputable in the same ways as the four patterns above.  I therefore call them theories rather than indisputable and obvious patterns such as the first two I pointed out.

Barnouin, for example says that all of the numbers are significant to the cycles of different stars and planets.  For example, Lamech's years are related to the cycles of Jupiter and Saturn and Jared's are related to Venus and Saturn and that the numbers are meant to represent order.

I don't buy that theory, but I do think that the first four patters are too much to be a coincidence.

Does anyone see more patterns?

I don't buy any claims that some people have in that they can do things like caculating the date of the second coming using biblical numbers.  I don't buy it at all.   Still, some of the number patterns in the Old Testament are interesting.  The four I point out above in Genesis 4 definitely exist.  Even if biology was different back then, I don't buy that they are just random numbers and coincidences.  They are too organized and fit too well with patterns to be coincidences.  I don't believe at all that they were just the real random lifespans of the people mentioned.  They symbolize something, but what?  I don't think anyone can answer that question, but I do find it interesting.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Scott

[JohnsonJones]

Interesting conjecture.

I think the ages are literal, but they could also be symbolic.

Another idea to consider.  I recently read an article where it had the hypothesis that days used to be quicker in the past than they are now.  That a day only lasted 23.5 days and a year would therefore be 372 days.

Of course, the ages are given in years, but with that idea, what if the years actually were shorter than they are now.  By this, I mean, what if the earth's value going around the sun was much less (perhaps even a tenth or a twelfth) of what it is now.  They could go through years a lot faster.

If could be that the ages ARE simply symbolic.  If they are symbolic we have no idea how long they lived or when they lived.  If that is true, than the other idea that has been floated, that the generations of Adam given in the Bible skip over many (in other words, there are those that are not mentioned between the generations that are in the genealogies between Adam and David and Adam and the Messiah) than the time period of the Bible could be far in excess of the 6000 years calculated centuries ago.

Unfortunately, as you note, we do not have these answers yet.

[Carborendum]

10 hours ago, Scott said:

Thirty ages of people are mentioned in Genesis 5.   

Actually, there are 10 people mentioned.  Their ages at two points (siring a son and their deaths).  The third number was the difference between those numbers.  Two of the numbers (whichever of the three) are independent.  The third is dependent.  Thus the analysis of that third number in the "randomness" question isn't of much weight. 

Quote

Many say that the ages are all literal.  Some say they are missing a decimal point.  I don't buy either one of these explanations for the reasons below.

I have no idea.  They could be literal, but for some reason we don't know about.  They could be figurative.  Again, I'd have no idea why.

Quote

In any cases the patterns of the numbers are interesting (which leads me to believe that there is something else to these numbers than only ages and they carry some sort of symbolic meaning).

What type of patterns do you see in the numbers?

One of the easiest to see patterns is that with the exception of Methusala, each number ends with 0, 2, 5, and 7.  Methusala's age ends with 9.

So, if these are indeed real ages, what would be the chances that a set of random numbers only ending with those specific numbers rather than having them more evenly scattered?  If anyone is curious it is about 1 in one million.  That's a really small chance that the numbers are random ages and that's just looking at the simplest pattern.

I do believe it is simply too clean to have the begetting age, the difference, and death age, all having a 0 at the end.  Yet this happened with three people out of the 10.  And two others have a zero with the difference between begetting and death -- one being Enoch.

I tend to think this is more attributable to rounding than with symbolic meaning.  With that many years, I don't know how easy it would have been to remember, really.  I don't know how accurate Methuselah's age was after so many years.  How did they know?  What calendar were they using? 

Because of rounding (looking only at their age at death, as an example) we have 7 people who represent 4 out of 9 numbers.  I don't know how you got one in a million.  I get around 1/300 (hardly infinitesimal for the sample size).  If you include the zero, you get about 1/1000.  Out of a sample of 10 people?  Yes, that's very possible. 

The fact that not a single one of the ages were not semi-years is interesting. i.e. there had to be the chance of someone having a birthday at such a time of the year compared to their begetting vs. their deaths that ONE of them at least should have not added up evenly.  Chances are.  But they all do.  Again, attributable to rounding.

As for the other four, that's four out of 9.  I don't know how you got one in a million.  I get around one in 3000.  If you include the zero, you get about 1/1000.  Out of a sample of 10 people?  Yes, that's very possible. 

Quote

It gets more interesting.

Here's another pattern that is harder to see at first glance, but that some writers have pointed out (and the patten in this case the pattern is both certain and real):

Each of the 30 numbers can be expressed in combinations of days and months of the two most sacred or significant numbers amoung the ancient Hebrews;  those numbers being 7 and 60.  (Interestingly, 60 is also very significant in ancient Mesopotanian numbers, because they base their mathematics on sixty (which is why we use 60 seconds to a minute and 60 minutes to an hour even today). 

When looking at this pattern (which all of the numbers fit), the chances that the 30 numbers are just random ages move from about 1 in a million from the first pattern to infinitesimally small when taking in account both patterns.

Again, where are your calculations for the probabilities?  I'm not seeing the numbers you're getting.  What months? What days?  What combinations?  Multiplying? Adding?  What?

Quote

Here's a third pattern that would have to be an incredible coincidence for the numbers to be random.

If you add up the ages of all of the patriarch's, including Noah, you have 8575 years, which just happens to be 5 X 5 X 7 X 7 X 7.   5 and 7 are both very sacred numbers in Hebrew since 5 represents God's grace and 7 represents the perfectness and holiness of God.

And if you add up all the gifts in 12 days of Christmas you get 364 which is just one shy of the 365 for a year.  So what?

Quote

Every single one of the ages can be expressed in either multiples of 5 by themselves or a multiple of 5 added to another multiple of 7 (see above for the sacred nature of the numbers five and seven).

For example, Methusala's 969 years is 191 X 5 + 7 + 7.  Jared's is 191 X 5 + 7.  Seth's is 185 X 5 +7.  Lamech's 777 is 154 X 5 +7.

The chances of random numbers all fitting the above four patterns are so infinitesimally small that they almost certainly aren't random.  

Where are your calculations?  I hope you realize that when you do this with two prime numbers in this manner, it actually tends to cover MANY numbers in the number line.

For a set of numbers from 1 to 1000, this pattern can be met by 972 of the numbers.  And if you forget the first 100 years, the only number that does not meet this criterion is 995.  Hardly conclusive.  I'm not sure how you saw this as "so infinitesimally small."

Quote

Does anyone see more patterns?

I see a bunch of numbers all grouped together except for Enoch, and possibly Noah.  But we know they were outliers.  Even Lamech was a partial outlier because he didn't make into the ark.

Quote

I don't buy any claims that some people have in that they can do things like caculating the date of the second coming using biblical numbers.  I don't buy it at all.   Still, some of the number patterns in the Old Testament are interesting.  The four I point out above in Genesis 4 definitely exist.  Even if biology was different back then, I don't buy that they are just random numbers and coincidences.  They are too organized and fit too well with patterns to be coincidences.  I don't believe at all that they were just the real random lifespans of the people mentioned.  They symbolize something, but what?  I don't think anyone can answer that question, but I do find it interesting.

In summary, the first two patterns are well within statistical variation for a sample size of 10 people.

(see below for the third pattern)

The fourth can be considered a fluke.  It's interesting.  But I don't see why this is supposed to mean anything. And in light of the others amounting to nothing, I'm not inclined to believe this one criterion means anything.

The fifth criterion, as I've demonstrated is smoke and mirrors.

I went through the exercise for the fifth pattern, I expect that since 50 is a multiple of 5 that we'd get very similar results for the third pattern. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Carborendum

[Guest Scott]

55 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Actually, there are 10 people mentioned.  Their ages at two points (siring a son and their deaths). 

I don't have much time right now, but to clarify, there are thirty ages/numbers mentioned in that section of the Bible, not 30 people.

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

I don't have much time right now, but to clarify, there are thirty ages/numbers mentioned in that section of the Bible, not 30 people.

Yes, I know.  You said that.  But I was pointing out that the fact we're talking about only 10 people and one of the numbers of each of the 10 people is a dependent variable as a function of the other two, then we're only talking about 20 numbers.  And with a sample size of 10 people, the rarity argument is invalid.  IOW, the patterns you mentioned are not at all surprising.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Carborendum

[Guest Scott]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If you include the zero, you get about 1/1000.  Out of a sample of 10 people?  Yes, that's very possible. 

I posted that late at night and was going to go over some of the math and make it exact since the others were just approximated from memory and now I have my computer and calculator.

You are correct in that it is 1/1024 if you only include the ages at death of the ten people themselves.  Those aren't the only numbers though.  In this chapter alone, there are 27 numbers in the KJV, all ending in 0, 2, 5, 7, and 9 with none ending in 1, 3 ,4, 6, or 8.

Assuming none of the numbers are rounded, the chances are 1/134,217,728.  The calculation is easy since the numbers represented cover half of all digits, i.e. (1/2)^27.

Some of the numbers are probably rounded though.

At most, it appears that up to seven of the numbers are possible roundings.

That makes the probability of numbers ending in 0, 2, 5, 7, and 9 with none ending in 1, 3 ,4, 6, or 8 to be 1/1,048,076, which is where I got the approximately one in a million chances.

I would call the chances of that happening to be very small.  It seems too little of a chance to be a mere coincidence.

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The fourth can be considered a fluke.  It's interesting. 

It could possibly be a fluke, but given the numerical symbology of the Bible and the other patters, it is probably not, at least in my opinion.

It is a well known fact that the bible is full of number symbols (5 as God's grace; 7 as God's perfection/holiness; 40 days and 40 nights, 666 as the mark of the beast, etc.  The symbology of those numbers are known to exist. That doesn't mean that those are the only sumbolic numbers though.    Genesis 4 is interesting because a lot of the sacred numbers appear to be related into patterns, but no one knows what the symbology is.

Anyway, I propose myself that the origin of evil is approximately 25.807, but that's just a joke.   Perhaps it's not that good of a joke either, but math savy Biblical historians find it funny.

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, Scott said:

I posted that late at night and was going to go over some of the math and make it exact since the others were just approximated from memory and now I have my computer and calculator.

You are correct in that it is 1/1024 if you only include the ages at death of the ten people themselves.  Those aren't the only numbers though.  In this chapter alone, there are 27 numbers in the KJV, all ending in 0, 2, 5, 7, and 9 with none ending in 1, 3 ,4, 6, or 8.

Assuming none of the numbers are rounded, the chances are 1/134,217,728.  The calculation is easy since the numbers represented cover half of all digits, i.e. (1/2)^27.

Some of the numbers are probably rounded though.

At most, it appears that up to seven of the numbers are possible roundings.

That makes the probability of numbers ending in 0, 2, 5, 7, and 9 with none ending in 1, 3 ,4, 6, or 8 to be 1/1,048,076, which is where I got the approximately one in a million chances.

I would call the chances of that happening to be very small.  It seems too little of a chance to be a mere coincidence.

It could possibly be a fluke, but given the numerical symbology of the Bible and the other patters, it is probably not, at least in my opinion.

It is a well known fact that the bible is full of number symbols (5 as God's grace; 7 as God's perfection/holiness; 40 days and 40 nights, 666 as the mark of the beast, etc.  The symbology of those numbers are known to exist. That doesn't mean that those are the only sumbolic numbers though.    Genesis 4 is interesting because a lot of the sacred numbers appear to be related into patterns, but no one knows what the symbology is.

Anyway, I propose myself that the origin of evil is approximately 25.807, but that's just a joke.   Perhaps it's not that good of a joke either, but math savy Biblical historians find it funny.

666 itself is symbolic.  7 is perfection, but 6 is near enough to perfection to try to fool someone, but far enough to be wrong, thus 6 itself is evil.  two 6's in Row is doubly evil, and three sixes are worst than everything else...hence the mark of the beast.

Thus, the true origin or root of evil should be 2.4494....

25.807 is simply the uniform distribution of exits under FAA regulations...

[Traveler]

I thought to add some nonsense to this thread and perhaps some very uncommon sense.  It is obvious that Genesis is the most problematic piece of scripture - especially to the hard core religionists and scientist.  Scholars believe that Moses was the initial creator of Genesis but that for almost 2000 years the texts of Genesis was past on by oral traditions.  Once Genesis was committed to text - experts believe it was copied and recopied by hand for generations.  Words and language evolve over time periods like that and there is no literal way to preserve much of anything.  If we look at the evolution of Christianity over the last 2000 years since Christ and it is obvious that there are significant gaps between supposed  beliefs and cultural behaviors.  And Christians have scripture text (including the Dead Sea Scriptures and others) that bridge the entire gap and there is no consensus of understanding even for a single simple point like divine grace.

There are two concepts that I believe the religious world really screws up big time.  The first is the concept of "literal".  I find it interesting that Jesus seldom, if ever, argued using the literal constructs of scripture and the Pharisees always argued for the literal interpretations and constructs of sacred scripture.  But I would say something else about literal interpretations of scripture.  Every religious person I have encountered that claims scripture to be the "literal" word of G-d will at some point ascribe symbolic meaning to scripture whenever it does not correspond to their notion of things.

Let me make an example of the Book of Revelation.  To be honest, I do not know why Christians even study that book in public.  I have read many a commentary on the Book of Revelation and am convinced that I personally know more than all such commentary (with the exception of revelations in the D&C) and I have little if any clue what much of any of it pertains to.

I have received revelation while reading scripture but most often such revelation connects a scripture I am reading with another scripture and it is like the understanding of both is necessary for the proper interpretation of either of them.   Always such revelation connect to something within my own experience.  It is like I have to experience something in my life before I can understand a pure notion of it in scripture.  In short - how I live my life directly impacts how I am able to understand scripture.  And this, I believe plays directly into Isaiah's notion of line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.

Finely, I would say this about the Book of Genesis.  The book begins with the first notions of G-d's plan of salvation and parallels our sacred teachings and covenants taught in the Temple of G-d.  And yet I am somewhat amazed that there are "literal" differences that I believe prove beyond any argument that Latter-day Saints ought to be very careful in declaring such things emphasize the literal letter of the Law - rather than the spirit of the Law and Covenants - thus, letting the spirit have no place in their heart, might, mind and strength of their sole.

 

The Traveler 

[JohnsonJones]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

I thought to add some nonsense to this thread and perhaps some very uncommon sense.  It is obvious that Genesis is the most problematic piece of scripture - especially to the hard core religionists and scientist.  Scholars believe that Moses was the initial creator of Genesis but that for almost 2000 years the texts of Genesis was past on by oral traditions.  Once Genesis was committed to text - experts believe it was copied and recopied by hand for generations.  Words and language evolve over time periods like that and there is no literal way to preserve much of anything.  If we look at the evolution of Christianity over the last 2000 years since Christ and it is obvious that there are significant gaps between supposed  beliefs and cultural behaviors.  And Christians have scripture text (including the Dead Sea Scriptures and others) that bridge the entire gap and there is no consensus of understanding even for a single simple point like divine grace.

There are two concepts that I believe the religious world really screws up big time.  The first is the concept of "literal".  I find it interesting that Jesus seldom, if ever, argued using the literal constructs of scripture and the Pharisees always argued for the literal interpretations and constructs of sacred scripture.  But I would say something else about literal interpretations of scripture.  Every religious person I have encountered that claims scripture to be the "literal" word of G-d will at some point ascribe symbolic meaning to scripture whenever it does not correspond to their notion of things.

Let me make an example of the Book of Revelation.  To be honest, I do not know why Christians even study that book in public.  I have read many a commentary on the Book of Revelation and am convinced that I personally know more than all such commentary (with the exception of revelations in the D&C) and I have little if any clue what much of any of it pertains to.

I have received revelation while reading scripture but most often such revelation connects a scripture I am reading with another scripture and it is like the understanding of both is necessary for the proper interpretation of either of them.   Always such revelation connect to something within my own experience.  It is like I have to experience something in my life before I can understand a pure notion of it in scripture.  In short - how I live my life directly impacts how I am able to understand scripture.  And this, I believe plays directly into Isaiah's notion of line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.

Finely, I would say this about the Book of Genesis.  The book begins with the first notions of G-d's plan of salvation and parallels our sacred teachings and covenants taught in the Temple of G-d.  And yet I am somewhat amazed that there are "literal" differences that I believe prove beyond any argument that Latter-day Saints ought to be very careful in declaring such things emphasize the literal letter of the Law - rather than the spirit of the Law and Covenants - thus, letting the spirit have no place in their heart, might, mind and strength of their sole.

 

The Traveler 

At times, those who believe the scriptures are literal ALSO believe they are symbolic.  A prime example is the Book of Mormon.  I believe the Book of Mormon to be a literal history of the ancient inhabitants of America (despite there being no factual evidence historically, archaeologically, or scientifically of this).

I ALSO believe it is a type and a shadow, that it is symbolic and represents what OUR day and time will be like.  It also sets forth the parameters of what our world will be like before the second coming (similar to the coming of the Lord in the Book of Mormon, his death and resurrection and it's effects on the New World) as a direct type and shadow (or so I feel it is).

Just because one feels something is literal does not also make it so they cannot see it as symbolic.

[Anddenex]

I would tend to accept what is written over theories as to why it was written the way it was.

I believe Joseph Smith pointed out the age of Adam is wrong due to Methuselah's age being older than Adam, and Adam is the ancient of days. 

Also, what if the ages aren't exact, but close to, in order to create the symbolic meaning behind them as well. Example, if someone wanted to specify (hypothetical) one more year. My exact age would be 44, but in their desire for symbolism (as I am in my 45th year) they say I was 45.

[Carborendum]

Quote

Assuming none of the numbers are rounded, the chances are 1/134,217,728.  The calculation is easy since the numbers represented cover half of all digits, i.e. (1/2)^27.

Yes, that would be correct.  But have you looked at the other side?  

What we have here is a bell curve.  But it is a very FLAT bell curve.  Even the high point in the center of the bell curve is very small.  It just happens to be larger than the rest of the curve.  For instance, if you wanted to find ONLY those combinations which used ALL 10 numbers, then it is NOT 10^27. It is MUCH smaller.

1/134,217,72 is actually ~7.45x10^18 / 10^27.  (Just take a moment to consider how large that numerator is before you go looking at the denominator).

vs.

But the probabilities of using each digit at least once among 30 (You switched on me, my calculations were based on 30 numbers) is about

10^9 (or 10^10) / 10^30. 

That is an even MORE infinitesimal than only using 5 numbers. 

On 4/25/2020 at 10:39 PM, Scott said:

I posted that late at night and was going to go over some of the math and make it exact since the others were just approximated from memory and now I have my computer and calculator.

You are correct in that it is 1/1024 if you only include the ages at death of the ten people themselves.  Those aren't the only numbers though.  In this chapter alone, there are 27 numbers in the KJV, all ending in 0, 2, 5, 7, and 9 with none ending in 1, 3 ,4, 6, or 8.

You're not really addressing my other points regarding you're whole numerology thing with the 5x7 is completely bunk.  I disproved it.  And you didn't address it.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Carborendum

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, that would be correct.  But have you looked at the other side?  

What we have here is a bell curve.  But it is a very FLAT bell curve.  Even the high point in the center of the bell curve is very small.  It just happens to be larger than the rest of the curve.  For instance, if you wanted to find ONLY those combinations which used ALL 10 numbers, then it is NOT 10^27. It is MUCH smaller.

1/134,217,72 is actually ~7.45x10^18 / 10^27.  (Just take a moment to consider how large that numerator is before you go looking at the denominator).

vs.

But the probabilities of using each digit at least once among 30 (You switched on me, my calculations were based on 30 numbers) is about

10^9 (or 10^10) / 10^30. 

That is an even MORE infinitesimal than only using 5 numbers.

True, but the scriptures didn't use those numbers.  If it did, then it probably wouldn't be a coincidence either since the chances of that happening are very small.

Quote

You're not really addressing my other points regarding you're whole numerology thing with the 5x7 is completely bunk.  I disproved it.  And you didn't address it.

You are correct on the third point.  It could be completely random.  It is interesting though in how it fits in with the other patterns. On it's own that one doesn't hold any water at all, for the reason you point out.  Perhaps I shouldn't have posted it so late at night.

I should have said fitting all patterns together collectively as being only a small chance.  Having all those numbers fitting each pattern does seem not to be a coincidence, even if the meaning isn't known.

I asked for any patterns that people might see.

The numbers in Genesis 4 are still interesting.  It is no secret that there is a lot of number symbology throughout the Bible.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Scott

[Traveler]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

At times, those who believe the scriptures are literal ALSO believe they are symbolic.  A prime example is the Book of Mormon.  I believe the Book of Mormon to be a literal history of the ancient inhabitants of America (despite there being no factual evidence historically, archaeologically, or scientifically of this).

I ALSO believe it is a type and a shadow, that it is symbolic and represents what OUR day and time will be like.  It also sets forth the parameters of what our world will be like before the second coming (similar to the coming of the Lord in the Book of Mormon, his death and resurrection and it's effects on the New World) as a direct type and shadow (or so I feel it is).

Just because one feels something is literal does not also make it so they cannot see it as symbolic.

Thank you for your response.  I have brought up a number of points about how we read and understand scripture.  Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between things that are historical and things that are fantasy.  All things have some reference to history - even the fantasy science fiction of Star Wars and Star Trek have historical relevance and connection to things associated to the unique history of when such things were created.  Even though the stories are friction they can reflect the thinking of their day - perhaps even more than than many books, journals and news articles of the same time era, written to describe events specifically in an intended historical context. 

I strongly believe your second paragraph is the most accurate description of the divine intent for the Book of Mormon.  I do not believe that our L-rd is attempting to prove or demonstrate that the Jaredites, Mulekites and Lehites had an important historical context to the Americas.   There is no revelation, that I am aware of that has pinpointed any of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon.  The only two places that we know that anyone in the Book of Mormon anciently visited in the Americas is Manti, Utah and Palmyra, New York.  But these two places were places of hiding specifically to avoid encountering anyone associated with any of the decedents of the Mulekites or Lehites and the historic places the inhabited.   In short the Book of Mormon is not that good at providing historical information of significant enough value to be able to locate any place in the Americas specific to the Book of Mormon.

I believe G-d wants and intends us to utilize the Book of Mormon to better understand Christ and the importance of the restoration of his Church and kingdom than to garner any historical information.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

Quote

I asked for any patterns that people might see.

Yes, they look pretty random to me.

7 hours ago, Scott said:

True, but the scriptures didn't use those numbers.  If it did, then it probably wouldn't be a coincidence either since the chances of that happening are very small.

What this means is that no matter what the numbers were you'd still find that there was something "special" about them. SMH.

You know what?  Have a field day.  I'm done.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Carborendum

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What this means is that no matter what the numbers were you'd still find that there was something "special" about them. SMH.

Even if all the numbers represent all 10 digits then it would be special because they represent all digits!  What are the chances of THAT!  If it missed only the number 3... ohhh... 3 is an evil number.

Yeah, we used to play this game with the chain letters back in the day.  Find meaning out of numbers related to a person, place, thing, event and make shocking chain letters.  There was a time I could spell Bee Gees upside down on the calculator using random numerical facts pertaining the Bee Gees.

[Jonah]

On 4/27/2020 at 1:19 AM, Traveler said:

The only two places that we know that anyone in the Book of Mormon anciently visited in the Americas is Manti, Utah and Palmyra, New York. 

Why do you believe that about Manti, Utah?

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, Jonah said:

Why do you believe that about Manti, Utah?

Brigham Young stated that Moroni initially dedicated the temple site in Manti. 

 

The Traveler

[Still_Small_Voice]

The Book of Moses was a restoration of lost portions of the book of Genesis.  It does not change the years of age that are recorded that men lived to.  Some examples of this can be viewed in Moses chapter 6.

It is my personal belief that the bodies of men and women have become more corrupted and degenerated in this fallen world so we do not live as long.  People used to live longer in the ancient days but not anymore.  Perhaps God's hand is in this because it is very rare now for any person to reach 120 years of age or longer. 

[Still_Small_Voice]

There is one other thought I have.  It is recorded that Adam lived to 930 years of age.  If his wife Eve lived with him with at least 450 years of fertility can you imagine how many children they had together?

[askandanswer]

On 5/2/2020 at 1:14 AM, Still_Small_Voice said:

Perhaps God's hand is in this because it is very rare now for any person to reach 120 years of age or longer. 

Its also a fact that average lifespans have been incresing for many decades now but Im not sure what conclusions this might point to. Are our bodies become less corrupt and degenerate?

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 4/25/2020 at 6:08 AM, JohnsonJones said:

Interesting conjecture.

I think the ages are literal, but they could also be symbolic.

Another idea to consider.  I recently read an article where it had the hypothesis that days used to be quicker in the past than they are now.  That a day only lasted 23.5 days and a year would therefore be 372 days.

Of course, the ages are given in years, but with that idea, what if the years actually were shorter than they are now.  By this, I mean, what if the earth's value going around the sun was much less (perhaps even a tenth or a twelfth) of what it is now.  They could go through years a lot faster.

If could be that the ages ARE simply symbolic.  If they are symbolic we have no idea how long they lived or when they lived.  If that is true, than the other idea that has been floated, that the generations of Adam given in the Bible skip over many (in other words, there are those that are not mentioned between the generations that are in the genealogies between Adam and David and Adam and the Messiah) than the time period of the Bible could be far in excess of the 6000 years calculated centuries ago.

Unfortunately, as you note, we do not have these answers yet.

I have a theory that the sun may have been cooler at the time Genesis. If so, then the Earth could have had an orbit similar to Mercury or even closer to the sun. The orbit of Mercury is roughly 1/4 that of Earth. If a person were to live for 100 years on our current orbit, then they would be 400 years with a closer orbit. If the Earth were even closer then the time year lengths would have been even longer?

[Still_Small_Voice]

On 5/2/2020 at 5:37 PM, askandanswer said:

Its also a fact that average lifespans have been increasing for many decades now but Im not sure what conclusions this might point to. Are our bodies become less corrupt and degenerate?

Medical science may possibly prolong our ages to around 120 to 130 years in the future.  It is still nothing compared to the 700 to 930 years Adam and other ancients lived to.

[Colirio]

Are we sure that a “year,” a translation of terminology having been passed down from the time of Moses or earlier, accurately reflects the time it took for this earth to revolve around the sun or could it reflect some other measurement of time? For instance, some other cultures have used agriculturally based calendar systems. 
 

And if that is accurate, are we sure that their systems of counting and math has been taken into account on this case? 
 

It just seems to me that there has been a lot of time that has passed, a lot of units of measurements that have changed over that time, and several translations of languages have occurred of this document before it arrived to us in our modern language with our modern units of measurement. 
 

Then, there is the whole “age of a man” thing in other scriptures:

3 Nephi 28:2 And they all spake, save it were three, saying: We desire that after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry, wherein thou hast called us, may have an end, that we may speedily come unto thee in thy kingdom.

3 And he said unto them: Blessed are ye because ye desired this thing of me; therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall come unto me in my kingdom; and with me ye shall find rest.

 

D&C 63:50 And he that liveth when the Lord shall come, and hath kept the faith, blessed is he; nevertheless, it is appointed to him to die at the age of man.
51 Wherefore, children shall grow up until they become old; old men shall die; but they shall not sleep in the dust, but they shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye.

Isaiah 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.