Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Ussher III · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Numeric Symbolism in Genesis 5 Patriarchs? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Number Symbolism in Genesis 5? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Ages or Names Symbolic?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 31.VIII.2023
- Has anyone else here come across this one?
"Patriarcal ages are not meant to be taken literally, as it is number symbolism" ...
If so, how did you respond?
My own response when meeting it today [a few days earlier] was:
Are you aware that most of Jewish numerology is actually post-Christian speculation?
In other words, it cannot realistically be taken as back-drop for how the text was formed.
- I
- Darrell Wilson
- Meilleur contributeur
- Darrell Wilson
- This sounds like a feeble attempt to change the word of God to fit someone's "theology".
- II
- Doug Loomis
- My response is figurative, smigurative.
- III
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Lexie A'lviore
- If you are going to ..read..THE BIBLE..literally..then you dont need God anymore..
- Diana Neuman
- Lexie A'lviore what does this mean?
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Diana Neuman some YEC said..THE BIBLE..should be read..literally
- Diana Neuman
- Lexie A'lviore , yes. I generally agree. Some parts are obviously figurative, like Song of Solomon. But I'd rather take literally any parts that reasonably can be.
- Mirth Johnson
- Diana Neuman the sermon on the mount can literally be, but Christians choose not to
- IV
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Lexie A'lviore
- I think that is what the enemy wanted..read..THE BIBLE..literally..Dont rely on God..trust those men..who are using their..cultural lenses..in interpreting THE BIBLE......?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- What's your exact point?
Some older cultural lenses being for numeric symbolism in the patriarcal ages?
Well, detect it.
- V
- Benjamin Hanson
- Meilleur contributeur
- Benjamin Hanson
- As you say, “most” numerology is later but that doesn’t prove the ages are not also chosen for their numerical significance.
The best starting point is probably other ancient genealogies, specifically the Sumerian King’s List. Determine the meaning of this and you have likely identified the meaning of the antediluvian genealogies.
The Kings List also has super human ages. The purpose of the King’s List was to legitimize the current king as inheriting “the” kingship God gave humanity.
There ‘may’ be numerological significance. The 8 antediluvian Kings and the 8 patriarchs between Adam and Noah BOTH have ages that sum close to 6 thousand, 6 hundred, 6 ten. Though of course the Sumerian list uses base-60.
Not sure if that is coincidence; just know some scholars claim it is not accidental.
- One answer
- to above, and another, for now B, but before that, A, his resumé, and my answer to that. He answered it, and so I answered that.
- A
- Benjamin Hanson
- Meilleur contributeur
- Benjamin Hanson
- TLDR: the ages themselves likely were never meant to construct a timeline of the past. But the time between when the kingship descended from heaven and when the great flood came was seen as a complete “age” of time.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- Benjamin Hanson "the ages themselves likely were never meant to construct a timeline of the past."
Why not, if the pre-Flood rulers in the Sumerian version were deified?
- Benjamin Hanson
- Meilleur contributeur
- Hans-Georg Lundahl We’re the Sumerian rulers deified? Honestly do not know. A common theme I see in comparing Genesis to other ancient texts is that Genesis largely de-mythologizes these earlier stories. I take this as Genesis operating (at least in part) as a polemic against the pagan myths that the Israelites grew up learning.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- Benjamin Hanson "Honestly do not know."
With such lifespans, it stands to reason they were.
"A common theme I see in comparing Genesis to other ancient texts is that Genesis largely de-mythologizes these earlier stories."
A common theme among unbelievers a k a Modernists.
- B
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Benjamin Hanson There is no figurative meaning attached to the Sumerian king list.
There is a reasoning that the Sumerian King list has its ages due to erroneous reading of number symbols denoting the rounded ages of those 8 patriarchs. And misreading further by taking positional counting to the wrong power of 60, in absence of a zero symbol.
In other words, Genesis 5 would contain literal history, Sumerian King list a fake reading of it to suit an agenda of suiting the pre-Flood rulers as Adam to Tubal-Cain.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- Benjamin Hanson "BOTH have ages that sum close to 6 thousand, 6 hundred, 6 ten"
That's actually just the Sumerian reading, with the rounding, but before the misreading. The sum in Genesis 5 is 6695.
- Benjamin Hanson
- Meilleur contributeur
- Hans-Georg LundahlYou may be more familiar than me. What I recall reading is that the biblical record sums to 6 thousands 6 hundreds 6 tens IF you skip the one’s place. Whether one copied the other or both derived this 6-6-6 notion from a common cultural numerology I am unsure.
At any rate I am not sure what the numerological meaning would even be (I either Biblical or Sumerian interpretation). Would 666 mean the antediluvian world was bad or that it was cut short before it reached a fullness?
What is the purpose of the ages? If Moses excluded them what would we be missing? Most important would be the sense that humanity has since gained a greater sense of mortality, living fewer years, since the flood. I don’t think the exact ages carry any meaning so much as their general largeness. I am comfortable allowing the exact ages to carry a symbolic meaning, but (not knowing that meaning) I wouldn’t preach it.
I think YEC doesn’t (and shouldn’t) hang upon this single passage.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- "the biblical record sums to 6 thousands 6 hundreds 6 tens IF you skip the one’s place."
Big if. Or some similar rounding. Still big if.
The Sumerians do, the Hebrews don't.
"Would 666 mean the antediluvian world was bad or that it was cut short before it reached a fullness?"
Not important, since the Hebrew sum of ages is not that kind of number. 6695 is another number.*
"What is the purpose of the ages? If Moses excluded them what would we be missing?"
Genesis 5 and 11,
1) given different text versions, shows there were between 2000 and 3500 years from when Adam was created and when Moses was visiting a Pharao;
2) irrespective of text versions, shows, the mainly ante-diluvian generations were able to live to 900 and past, the mainly post-diluvian ones dwindled from 600 to 175
3) given the overlaps of generations, they show that Moses or at least Abraham, could have the Genesis 3 account in an oral tradition comparable to one of 200 - 400 years in normal post-Flood lifepans.
- * (footnote)
- 6695 is adding up, as if serialised, total years of Seth to Lamech in Genesis 5. Here are a few variants on adding up, Genesis 5 and 11, I don't spot any number symbolism anywhere in the other "as if serialised" totals either:
Genesis 5 (up to Lamech in the first version)
930 + 912 + 905 + 910 + 895 + 962 + 365 + 969 + 777 = 7625
7625 - 930 = 6695 without Adam
7625 + 950 = 8575 with Noah
Genesis 11
600 + 338 + 433 + 464 + 239 + 239 + 230 + 148 + 205 = 2896
2896 + 950 = 3846 with Noah
2896 + 175 = 3071 with Abraham
2896 + 950 + 175 = 4021 with Noah and Abraham
2896 + 460 = 3356 with second Cainan
3846 + 460 = 4306 with second Cainan and Noah
3071 + 460 = 3531 with second Cainan and Abraham
4021 + 460 = 4481 with second Cainan and Noah and Abraham
It can be added, Sumerian Kinglist actually serialised their 8 pre-Flood kings, rounded versions of Seth to Lamech in year counts, probably more like Adam to Cainite Lamech or Cain to Tubal-Cain, in spirit. The numbers - inflated by multiplication by 60 - are taken as regnal lengths, not lifespans.
- VI
- Benjamin Hanson
- Meilleur contributeur
- Benjamin Hanson
- Hans-Georg LundahlTo be sure, the primary break between Genesis and other cosmogonies of the Ancient Near East is monotheism, the sovereignty of YHWH over all.
But part of this is taking the lesser gods and turning them into natural features (the earth, seas, greater and lesser lights, etc are no longer divine) and taking the demigods (the Sumerian kings you mentioned as well as the Apkallu and other such beings) and turning them into men.
What the pagans saw as a whole host of beings of various powers and responsibilities, Moses (rightly) saw as a natural world under the governance of a single, almighty God.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- Benjamin Hanson You have fairly righly assessed the theological difference between Genesis and pagans.
But you forget there is a big difference between saying Moses had access to Flood accounts and similar independently of Sumerians, from the correct sources, and therefore they are true history, and saying he or someone later on (candidates would get as far away from him as Ezra) got a story from them, which was not true, which was idolatrous, and then just amended the idolatrous part, and took the rest from what amounts to a very dubious source.
"a whole host of beings of various powers and responsibilities"
Angels can have responsabilities UNDER God commanding them, for instance over heavenly bodies.
- Benjamin Hanson
- Meilleur contributeur
- Hans-Georg Lundahl the theory that Moses had different or “correct” sources compared to the pagans is one for which I have not yet seen strong evidence.
All pre-Mosaic antediluvian stories that have been discovered are primarily polytheistic. This drives my own suspicion that Genesis is, at least in part, a polemic. It also begs incredulity to believe that (lost? hidden?) monotheistic versions of the stories existed and were copied and were preserved for over a thousand years by societies which themselves were not monotheistic.
As stated, the primary difference between Genesis and the pagan stories is the theological framework in which the stories are told. The “source” for that framework is most likely Moses’s own close relationship with YHWH. This is his contribution. If you say both the stories and the theology are pre-Mosaic then you are really stripping Moses of any authorship role and you might as well say Ezra wrote it as Moses.
For some reason we find it easier to identify the theology of Paul’s epistles as an outflow of Paul’s ministry and his walk with God. In like manner the theology of Genesis is also constructed out of Moses’s ministry and walk with God. These documents were not written without occasion, they were written to guide and direct the people Paul and Moses were called to serve.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- Benjamin Hanson "All pre-Mosaic antediluvian stories that have been discovered are primarily polytheistic. "
How pre-Mosaic are they?
I recall the oldest tablets we have as being dated to c. 1800 BC.
That carbon date (yes, wool around tablets contain carbon unlike the clay, and other adjacent objects could also be involved) would correspond to about when Moses was born (as per the then pharao was Sesostris III, whose coffin is dated to 1838 BC).
And Moses never went to Mesopotamia anyway - your theory works lots better for those denying Moses and affirming Ezra instead wrote the book of Genesis.
"the theory that Moses had different or “correct” sources compared to the pagans is one for which I have not yet seen strong evidence."
How about Genesis 11 giving a sufficiently low count of "minimally overlapping generations" between Flood and Abraham?
That's how Haydock reasons about Genesis 3 events.
// Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H. //
Those were Moses' sources, a straight-on family tradition.
The Mesopotamian scribes, by contrast, had to do with conflicting traditions, attempted compromises, effective and rejected compromises in a much bigger society which therefore falsified the primeval memories, on top of which, they had theological reasons to falsify the memories.
Like Babylonians wanted the Flood to be sent by a "ruler god" and the Ark to be planned by a "trickster god" and had the brothers Enlil and Enki or Marduk and Ea in the two roles.
I think this is fairly strong evidence that Moses built on better sources than the pagans are providing us with.
"If you say both the stories and the theology are pre-Mosaic then you are really stripping Moses of any authorship role and you might as well say Ezra wrote it as Moses."
Not if Moses was their final redactor, like St. Luke was that of lots of witnesses, and the point is, by Ezra's time, the tradition would have had more time to get obfuscated. Precisely like you cannot substitute a scribe in Constantine's time for St. Luke.
Plus, Moses added one piece apart from the final ordering to the things he had received - the six day account of which he had a vision in Sinai.
Plus, you are downgrading Moses' honesty (in unrealistic ways) by pretending he drew on pagan and suspect stories and only corrected the theology in them.
PLUS so many things lack to Pagans - Abel and Cain, Tower of Babel being two of them, and most pagans, including all except Zoroastrians, a primeval couple too.
- VII
- Eli Whitney
- The ages are actual lifespans, no matter how much they want to believe it is not so.
- VIII
- continuing with Lexie A'lviore
- Kyle Bower
- Meilleur contributeur
- Lexie A'lviore if you do you not take it literally, you are calling God a liar.
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Kyle Bower nope...i believe in God
I dont believe in your wrong interpretation
- Kyle Bower
- Meilleur contributeur
- Lexie A'lviore twisting scripture to fit your worldly beliefs is not Christian.
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Kyle Bower PRECISELY...so dont do it..
- Kyle Bower
- Meilleur contributeur
- Lexie A'lviore
😆😂🤣
I am the one taking scripture for what it says the way God intended, but I am the one twisting it. 👌
Way to twist my comment just like you twist scripture.
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Kyle Bower nope..all you did..make false accusations..you did not give a verse..
Show me a verse..that say
AND GOD SAID.. I CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 NORMAL DAYS...then you can laugh
JUST LIKE IN THE DAYS OF NOAH
Kyle Bower thanks for proving my point
- Kyle Bower
- Meilleur contributeur
- Lexie A'lviore lol you’ve proved my point. Twisting once again. read Gen 1. The Hebrew word that is used for day is Yom. When Yom is used with evening and morning, it ALWAYS means a 24 hour period. It’s important to know the original translation.
Lexie A'lviore you’ve got nothing.
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Kyle Bower nope..you ve got nothing
AGAIN..show me a verse that say
AND GOD SAID....I CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 NORMAL DAYS...
Kyle Bower JUST LIKE IN THE DAYS OF NOAH..
some people will laugh...just because they cant prove their hypothesis...twisting the scriptures..then they will imitate unbelievers and laugh...just like unbelievers from the days of Noah
- Kyle Bower
- Meilleur contributeur
- Lexie A'lviore you must not have spent much time reading scripture. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”
2 Timothy 3:16 the only way to get an old age for Earth is with extra biblical sources. It is obvious that it was created by God in 6 days, because that is what scripture says. You are making the opposite claim. Show me where in scripture the Earth and the rest of creation took longer than 6 days.
[...] “JUST LIKE IN THE DAYS OF NOAH.. some people will laugh...just because they cant prove their hypothesis...twisting the scriptures..then they will imitate unbelievers and laugh...just like unbelievers from the days of Noah”…
The irony of your comment is both hilarious and sad at the same time.
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Kyle Bower you must spent..a lot of time..reading
But you cant see it...blinded by your lord..the one commanded you to laugh at people..lord of those people laughing at Noah
- Kyle Bower
- Meilleur contributeur
- Lexie A'lviore you’re the one laughing at Truth. You contradict the Bible and have the nerve to say I am twisting scripture?…. Do you know how ridiculous you sound? lol you can’t make this stuff up.
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Kyle Bower you are the one putting haha emojis.using the unbeliever s LOL..then you have the nerve to say i am the one laughing..?
Show me a man who are using LOL and i will show you a false christian
- Kyle Bower
- Meilleur contributeur
- Lexie A'lviore now you’re equating the laughing emoji with a non-believer?… Another ridiculous comment.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- Lexie A'lviore Have you considered Exodus 20?
1 And the Lord spoke all these words: " .... 8 Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. 10 But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it."
Or, actually neutral between "one moment" and "six literal days" but definitely no friend to "days = ages of millions of years" - here:
5 To whom Jesus answering, said: "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. 8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
- Kyle Bower
- Meilleur contributeur
- Lexie A'lviore you are saying that if you use a laughing emoji they are a false Christian. That is ridiculous. God made humor. Take it up with him.
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Hans-Georg Lundahl AGAIN...THERE IS NO VERSE THAT SAY
AND GOD SAID....I CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 NORMAL DAYS
GOD IS OUTSIDE OF TIME...HE WAS NOT A SLAVE OF YOUR 24 HOUR/DAY...........?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- No, but He referenced it in Exodus 20:11.
Again, Mark 10:6 is irrelevant for the debate days vs one moment, but it cuts out millions of years alright.
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Hans-Georg Lundahl THE BIBLE is clear
GOD NEVER SAID...HE CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 NORMAL DAYS..some people will try to imposed their beliefs in the scriptures...implying God was a slave of their 24hour/ day...
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- Lexie A'lviore In Exodus 20, God was talking of OUR normal days and of OUR normal work week.
Implying that working six NORMAL days (mornings 24 h apart) and resting one NORMAL day (morning 24 h after morning of day six) corresponded to what HE had done in Creation week.
Stop lying about the Bible.
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Hans-Georg Lundahl stop lying about the BIBLE?
Show me the verse..that say
And GOD said...I CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 NORMAL DAYS...
Stop implying that God was a slave of your 24 hour
He is outside of time..blindness makes you a believer of false things..
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- Lexie A'lviore That God is outside of time does not mean His actions about creation are outside of time, since creation is NOT outside time.
Did God part the Red Sea during the Exodus, or can one not pin point when He did it, since He's outside of time? Did Jesus rise on the Third Day, or can one not pinpoint it, since He's outside of time? Did God call Abraham when he was 75 years old, or can one not pinpoint it, since God is outside of time? Did God provide Abraham miraculously with the son Isaac when he was 100 years old, or can one not pinpoint it, since He is outside of time?
Yes, God is outside of time, but what He does about created things is not, since these created things are not outside of time.
- Lexie A'lviore
- Meilleur contributeur
- Hans-Georg Lundahl Did God say
And there was morning and evening....in Genesis 1:?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Auteur
- Lexie A'lviore No, God said "and there was evening and morning"
in each case after the work of creation, so, one of the days would :
1) start in the morning (except day 1 starting on earth in the dark)
2) continue in the work of creation (nearly identic to morning for day 1)
3) then finish with evening and following morning.
Now, my turn.
Suppose you could extend the days to millions of years (contrary to Exodus 20, contrary to Mark 10:6). How does that change that between Adam, the very first man, and Abraham, there are 2000 - 3000+ years according to Genesis 5 and 11?
My question was actually not about the creation days, but about the genealogies in Genesis 5 (and by extension 11), since someone had made a claim, these are not chronological but only symbolical statements.
And man, having lifespans in time, actually is tied to normal years. Like 930 for Adam.
