The following comes from:
Carol Hill, A Worldview Approach
to Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2019), 48,
49
The first thing to notice in Table 4-2 is that most of
the numbers listed in the Genesis chronologies are based on the sexagesimal (60)
system and can be placed into one of two groups: (1) multiples of five;
that is, numbers exactly divisible by five, whose last digit is 5 or 0; and (2)
multiples of five with the addition of seven (or two sevens). The
significance of the number five is that 5 years = 60 months, and combinations
or multiples of 60 years + 5 years (60 months) are basic to the patriarchal
ages. Note that for the 30 (10 rows, 3 columns = triplet) numbers listed for
the antediluvian patriarchs up to the flood (from Adam to Noah), all of
the ages end on 0, 5, 7, or 2 (5 + 7 = 12), with only one number ending in
9 (5 + 7 + 7 = 19). However, since the third number of each triplet is
entirely determined by the sum of the first two numbers, it cannot be treated
as independent. The truly independent calculation has 20 numbers that end in 0,
2, 5, and 7 – a chance probability of about one in ninety million! For
the entire 6-number list (antediluvian and postdiluvian), none of the ages end
in 1 or 6—a chance probability of about one in a half million.
Such mathematical improbabilities continue for the 26
generations between Adam and Moses, as shown in Table 4-3. If one includes the
six generations from Abraham to Moses (Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram,
Moses), then the total number of years of these men becomes 12,600 (70 x 180),
which total reflects both the sexagesimal (base 60; 60 x 3 = 180) system of the
Mesopotamians and the Mesopotamian-Hebrew preferred number 7 (or 70). The ages
in the first, Genesis 5, column add up to 8,575 (25 x 7 x 7 x 7) and the 7 ages
in the third column add up to 1,029 (3 x 7 x 7 x 7). The 17 ages of the first
and third column combined add up to 9,604 (4 x 7 x 7 x 7 x 7); the middle age
for these two columns is that of Lamech (777), and the 7 ages on either side of
Lamech add up to a total of 7,777!
It is inconceivable that all of this should be
accidental! Surely, if all of the ages listed in Tables
4-2 and 4-3 are statistically random numbers, such numerical improbabilities should
not exist. The conclusion must be that these patriarchal numbers were purposely
contrived by scribes knowing both mathematics and the religious importance
of these numbers. The question that then must be asked is: What could have been
the significance of these numbers? Could these ages somehow by mathematically
connected to the real ages of the patriarchal? Could they be cryptographic
(gematria) numbers, where numerical values were assigned to different letters
of the patriarch’s names? Why do the “begetting” ages of the patriarchs
decrease over time (Table 4-2)? It is because successive biblical authors
gradually lost their concept of sacred exaggerated sexagesimal numbers? Were
these numbers “assigned” to the patriarchs on the basis of their character,
accomplishments, or relationship with God? For example, in the generally
decreasing age trend, there is an enormous jump in the “begetting” age of Noah,
which may signify an attempt by the biblical author to favor the more righteous
or those who “stand out” from the rest due to their prominence in the unfolding
story (i.e., Noah, the righteous hero of the flood). Specially for Genesis and
the patriarchal ages, how these numbers were meant at the time of writing is something
that we may only guess at today, and if a mathematical or theological principle
underlies such numbers, it is no longer readily apparent. What does seem
apparent, however, is that the specific intent of the biblical author(s) of the
patriarchal ages was to preserve numerical symmetry and harmony in the written
text, one commensurate with their mathematical worldview.
The following are tables 4-2 and 4-3 taken from Ibid., 49, 50 (click to enlarge):
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
