I do think it is possible that Moses and Elijah were in their own separate times in history in some way we don’t understand at the transfiguration, but I don’t see that there is any reason to assume that. However, for the sake of your question, I do think it is possible.
Connor, the angle would change, but concentration of light depends on how high the water would be above/around the earth, and how thick the water layer is. At present tropospheric levels, the light would not be concentrated in one point. Even if it could be concentrated , it would merely make it hotter in one spot, and not so hot in other spots… the global equilibrium would not change much, only a little due to changing the diameter of the effective solar capture. The atmosphere can also do that (solar capture) as you will notice the light refraction by the atmosphere in the mornings and evenings. On the other hand, light can also be bounced off the water, especially if the angle is a shallow angle, such as in the evenings or mornings.
In addition, while light entering the water would be refracted to center, light leaving the water would be refracted away from center, because of a convex angle when entering and a concave angle when exiting towards earth.
1 Like
@Connor_Mooneyhan So many comments and I really can’t get caught up in them all. However, I did want to bring up some issues to consider. Trying to use Numerology as a lense with which to see Genesis perhaps missed the mark a bit. When we consider the Sumerian King lists the conversation thus far as focused on the numbers, relative age of the documents, and value of the Sumerian texts. None of which considers what we know about the early Sumerian rulers. I believe we can all agree to the following.
1) The rule of Sumerian kings was generally priestly in nature. They were considered either gods, sons of gods, or demi gods.
2) Having just left Egypt the various tribes would likely have been aware of this cultural and religious belief.
3) Only the Sumerian kings achieved such dramatic lifespans.
With that in mind, reread those early verses when God decides that mankind will only live 120 years. Why weren’t the Tribes of Israel bothered by God’s command that mankind would only live 120 years only to see several generations pass that up? Perhaps because the message was less concerned with an historical account and more concerned with establishing God’s sovereignty. Given that the people of the Middle East would have understood that kings were godly in some way, those passages read very much like a rejection of the religious and political norm. A reminder from God to the people that HE was their king and that they were to be different, set aside. Remember, they had just left Egypt and several hundred years of rule under the demi-god Pharaoh. Then they receive this story from Moses.
I’m pulling much of my inspiration from N.T. Wright. If you haven’t read anything by him Connor, I STRONGLY encourage it. It can be tough to get through and you may not agree. But he will definitely challenge the lenses through which the Western church typically reads scripture. It is his argument, not mine, that we should read the gospels as the establishment of God’s kingdom. Given that, the sovereignty traditionally given to kings and demonstrated by their unnatural lifespans are very explicitly rejected and overthrown by God in early Genesis.
Its late and I keep catching spelling/grammatical errors so I’m to leave you with that to mull over as you consider how to read those particular passages.
Respectfully,
Jim
What if the ancients got this diagram slightly wrong?
What if this diagram was designed by Noah, with a few inaccuracies. Between Heaven and the firmament the waters were placed what if the waters were truly, in between the Sun, Moon and stars, which would make the observation from the earth kind of magnified. In a sense a natural telescope. But let’s look at other things here. If we fill the globe full of water, the solar waves from the sun, would hit the water, and since the water is not moving, would be reflected and heat the water. Eventually all the water would reach a high temperature. Thus doing what you stated.
However, if the water was risen to an altitude to cause the magnification, which ancient astrology showed in detail the night sky. Now, with the water moving at a great speed, and the light from the sun heating up at 90 degree angles this water, what would the depth of the water be, to maintain a constant comfortable environment on the earth below? A thin layer of water would cause the radiation bounce back, that you described. If we increase the depth of the water, then we might have something here.
Now, what I am suggesting is better explained as a water shield. For if the water shield is moving, as the light heats up the water, the heat is then transferred off equally, and the force of the motion of the water going from the light side of the earth to the dark side would in a way cool the water. This would provide a utopian, perfect atmosphere, as a cooler works in the house for example. By air being forced through water a cooling of that air occurs. Similar in this global scale. But for this to work, the water would be of a certain depth to provide a cooling of the earth to stop the sun from unequal heating of the earth. The water in a sense would provide a way to equally heat the earth as well as equally cool the earth. For you could be at any point on the earth and it would be equal temperature. Without the water shield, then the water would freeze at the poles. With the water shield the freezing would not occur. The seasons would change slightly in temperature.
In addition when a rainbow was first seen by Noah, it was described as God’s bow, a sign that God would not destroy the earth by water again. Looking at that statement in Genesis, and going according to the belief of Moses at the time, it would make sense that the water shield blocked out any sight, from the surface of the earth of a rainbow. This would suggest that the depth of the water was so thick that a rainbow could not be seen or identified.
We know that a rainbow is formed from light passing through water. A reflection of that light is the rainbow. What if the water of the firmament is such that there was so much water in orbit around the earth(the water shield) that it did not blot out light completely, but did not allow light to reflect in the form of a rainbow. Under this circumstance, then the heat of the sun, with the cooling of the water would henceforth be equal, but this equilibrium, would be the result of the water moving at such a speed that would allow the water to cool the earth, as well as enough light to heat the earth to reach a utopian equilibrium of temperature and pressure. As the earth slowed, and the firmament collapsed, storms would be greater, as the sky would lose the water, thus the color of the sky, with no clouds would not be a deep blue like the oceans, but a light blue as the sky is now.
I am just wondering if this is possible. Because in further thought, if we were able to construct on a smaller scale, a device, that could spin at a fast rate from east to west, that it would raise water to the circumference of that globe, and plant simple plants inside this crazy green house type device, I wonder if the plants would grow bigger in size, with modern gardening or farming methods, as compared to a plant out side this globe as what is done today.
If the experiment of a spinning watershield greenhouse is successful, I think this thought process is on the right track. What you you guys think? In this area even though I bring up good points, I still feel like an amature. To create this device, we would have to spin the globe so the centrifugal force, to spread out the water, at the same time the base cannot move, for that is where the planting must be done. In addition it would have to be built with either glass or plexiglass to hold the water within the globe. Do you think it is possible to design or build such a device? And if such a device is built do you think it would work?
And if it does, we have some evidence that states the firmament could be possible. Then with the same device in the model form we could in a sense recreate how the flood did occur. Just food for thought or a project for a rich man to develop. lol
Aside from the bible, there is the text that was believed to be older than Genesis, called the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees and there is another book, that was considered to be apocryphal books. Although not books of faith, I believe they are records of accounts that did happen in the era of the pre-flood times. But again we do not know for sure.
You are bring up a possible question that I have been trying to research the answer to the question.
In Genesis 6, there is an account that the angels of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man. If it turns out that this story is true(which I happen to believe to be true), then the stories of not only Genesis, chapter 6 is true, but Enoch and Jubilees are also true. Which Enoch is referred to in Jude.
Now, as I began studying the event that Enoch and Genesis chapter six describes I found some interesting facts according to these witnesses.
-
the theory of ancient aliens and the theory of these some odd 200 angels seem to fit.
-
The Egyptians believed themselves to be descendants of the Nephilim, the union between angel and woman.
-
According to the book of Enoch, the angel Azrael, who was the chief angle of the rebellious 200 angels, is considered by the ancients to be the angel of death, Lucifer or Satan.
-
These two hundred angels were restrained by the watchers, (Michael, Ariel, Gabriel and Raphael) until their off-spring killed each other off. Then were cast into the depths of Sheol, or Hades.
-
There is evidence to suggest that Cronos of Greek Mythology was one of these offspring. These Titans are responsible for naming three of the seven continents, Europe(Europa), Asia, and Africa.
-
When these Nephilim died off, that is the first generation, because they were half angel, have man, they had a spirit. This spirit was not allowed into heaven so they remain on the earth. These disembodied spirits are called demons.
-
The two hundred angels that rebelled against God, who are chained in hell are called devils.
-
In addition of poisoning the gene pool of humans with the angelic power, these rebellious angels according to the books of Enoch and Jubilees, taught mankind the art of astrology, astronomy, sorcery, splitting of roots, and splitting of species, (Which can be considered DNA and genetic experimentation), and an abomination considered as human sacrifice.
-
If one would look at all the stories written about these evil and wicked creations, based upon not only ancient text, but also modern stories, one notices a pattern. Look for instance the creatures in Blizzard’s Starcraft for example, the Zerg and the Protos, both showing features of what was described by the ancients in their mythical creatures. A first generation Nephilim giant was explained to have blue not red eyes. A creature with red eyes would denote a demon, where a creature with blue eyes would denote a devil, or for what the species of creature is an angel. And not just any angel but a seraphim, or the fiery ones.
-
Nimrod, grandson of Noah, by that of Noah’s son, Cush, was married to his mother who took the name Ishtar, which we know with the pronunciation of Easter. Nimrod was a Nephilim, or a giant with extra-ordinary power. He inherited the garments of Adam and Eve. Nimrod was the first king of Chaldea, or Babel. He constructed the tower of babel with the enlightened knowledge of his god, Molech, who would turn out to be a demon, son of Azrael. Nimrod was dismembered in battle, and Ischar made Nimrod the sun god, where she took the position of the moon god. The sun god’s name was Baal, and this is the god that the Israelites would pray to when they sinned against God.
-
Moses would write centuries later, that all the practices of the Nephilim and their fathers, the rebellious angels, are prohibited, from the first commandment in Exodus until the end of Numbers in the law of Moses. These abominations, as was seen by all the surrounding ancient neighbors of the Israelites, were taught to them by their ancestors. Solon speaks of atlantis, which could possibly be Eden. Knowledge on this is sketchy at best. Socrates uses it for political philosophy.
-
St. Augustine writes about two cities of humans. Cain was exiled from Adam and Eve and built his own city. Now, Cain’s descendants, the women sinned by having intercourse with the rebellious angels. Where as the line of Seth, as Moses and Enoch points out was the pure blood of human beings. By the time of the flood, in the family of Noah, the Nephilim and humans were united in one family. In time the Nephilim gene would reach a point of equilibrium. It is at that point Jesus Christ appeared on the scene. And He brought with Him the cure for the gene. Therefore, Christ could show man how man could heal themselves.
Now using the bible, myths, and legends of ancient times, and by connecting the dots in the style of the ancient alien theorists, this idea was born. Using the attributes of what was witnessed, rather than attempting to debunk the story but reading the story as I would be reading a story from a child, I have found certain attributes remain the same in all ancient societies as well as all societies today. I know there are many more factors that I have have yet to find but between the Nephilim, and the collapse of the firmament, I think truly we are on to something…
1 Like
@Anthony_Tony_Ambruti You’ve make a lot of assertions here, and responding to all of them would take more time than I have to offer. I do want to make several points, though, in response to your extremely detailed analysis of the relationship between science and scripture:
- Almost all of your thoughts assume that the Bible (especially the OT) is like a jigsaw puzzle of scientific data points to be aligned correctly. This is simply not in line with the vast majority of Christian thought about scripture, as well as the opinion of the vast majority of OT scholars of all persuasions.
- I’m not sure you correctly understand the ancient picture of the world. In ancient cosmology, the sun and planets traveled on the inside of the "water shield, not the outside (as the pictures show). So your points about sunlight filtering and rainbows are assuming a modern scientific cosmology, not the ancient near east understanding of the world. There is a wealth of evidence that the writers of Scripture were drawing from the cosmology of their time. God gave them special theological revelations, not scientific ones.
- To say that Isaiah was intending to give us a precise scientific measurement when he said that a day is like a thousand years to God is to misunderstand the passage. The purpose of that passage is to show how God’s perception of time is different than ours, but there is no indication that Isaiah is giving a precise revelation from God about time scales.
I appreciate your deep desire to understand Scripture and science, but they must be harmonized in ways that correctly interpret both. To me, that means that while science and Scripture both speak truly about the world, they do so in different ways that don’t need to be lined up point by point.
Brad, I agree that the water canopy thing doesn’t work. It would have to be ice instead of water anyway. But I have never seen this “wealth of evidence” that the writers of scripture were drawing on the cosmology of their time. If they were, then it would not leave open the possibility of various cosmologies, which is does. In my view, the “wealth” is poverty. Not saying what they believed about cosmology, just that they didn’t need to draw on it for their writing.
I believe reason, whether it comes from a religious source or a scientific source need to be in communion. For if either religion or science is not in communion with the truth then the human researching the topic is either bias or being fooled by the facts.
We know religion is truth as taught to us by faith.
We know science is truth as taught to us by observation.
We know through religion that God is the source of Truth.
We know through science we found an orderly way of discovering truth.
So in a sense one can say science is searching for God.
If we were to eliminate or disregard any of the witness statements we lose the function of the knowledge they are intending to pass on to us. I cannot do this.
Look at the study of electricity for example. Electron flow occurs either by static or by magnetic, or by chemical means or by light. To focus on one state, like magnetic, a man can go so far, but if one focuses on all aspects, this man would go further in knowledge. This was the mistake of Thomas Edison vs Tesla. It seems in these conversations, that many brilliant minds tend to get caught up in the Thomas Edison view point and refuse to listen to Tesla, dismissing his work completely. Like wise there are some that follow Tesla’s view point yet they dismiss Thomas Edison, when in reality when one uses both knowledge, a new truth is discovered. This is what I am applying to the first book of Genesis.
We cannot deny anything, to find a new truth. Therefore, it is a giagantic scientific and religious jigsaw puzzle. But there must be established certain rules to follow. One of them that I follow is what is common to both, it is here that new knowledge can be found. Like I said in another blog, I wish the knowledge of the Library of Alexandria could be accessed.
Hi Brad I’m reading whatever I find, just to know what people have thought and written. I have something that might be new to you. Time is a property of our universe. God created that universe but is not a part of that universe. My question is: Is time also a property of God or only a creation of God? If it is a creation, then he can oversee time and then a day is equal to 1000 years.
@Jan_de_Boer I agree God is outside of time, but I don’t understand why that means a day equals exactly 1000 years in God’s perception.
With that in mind, reread those early verses when God decides that mankind will only live 120 years. Why weren’t the Tribes of Israel bothered by God’s command that mankind would only live 120 years only to see several generations pass that up?
It is more likely that the sumerian account perverted the actual account or is dealing with “kings”, rather than ancestors of men of God, while the Genesis account brings the lifespan of the ancestors after the flood into line with present observations within about seven generations. This follows the promise of God that lifespans would be reduced to 120 years. God purposed this, and it is reasonable to see that this happened after the flood, not in an immediate miraculous manner, but rather in a semi-miraculous natural manner over time as the decline followed a rather steep curve downwards. This is also likely a consequence of changed genetics, combined with environmental conditions that led to increased mutations… The first three after the flood had half the lifespan, and the next three had half the lifespan again, and then it continued to decline (generally), until the time of Moses.
2 Peter 3:8, And here is one point, my friends, which you must not lose sight of: with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.
To me this means that He is simultaneously present in our universe from its noisy start to its undoubtedly violent end. When I adjust some instrument, I may presume that it will work properly for some time. When He initiated the big bang, He knew and saw its whole future, including our evolution and whatever. And to me this means that all discussions about intelligent design and related subjects have little to do with reality. Philosophizing without having the required knowledge, like talking about entropy without knowing what entropy is. Thereby having no idea of the real greatness of our Lord and diverting from what is really important.
And I noticed only once somebody wondering: “Strange…, evolution is such a slow process, requiring many million years. We went from Stone Age to collecting stones on the Moon in a few millennia. How is it possible that humans lived in Stone Age only a few millennia ago?”.
First post here.
I thought God’s 120 years was a statement about the time between when God made that particular declaration and when the flood came. Not that man could only live 120 years (although that seems to have become reality), but rather that only 120 years remained until God would destroy mankind.
Has that been debunked?
On my first reading of the numbers in Genesis 5 was the longevity of the patriarchs. On second, third and fourth readings I noticed that something seemed odd about the numbers themselves.
All age numbers (30 in total) end in 0,2,5,7, and one case (Methuselah) in 9. That might sound impressive until you realize that’s half the known digits. The odds of that happening with random number is like flipping a coin 30 times in a row and them all turning up heads. A chance probability of one in a billion.
John, you bring up the notion that evolution is vastly more improbable, so we shouldn’t make much of it. However, evolutionary theory doesn’t have much to do with the genealogy of Genesis 5, so it’s not really related. I do agree with you that Enoch lived much shorter than the other nine patriarchs.
When you analyze Genesis 5, it’s a an almost “boring account”… This guy lived, begat that guy, then died etc., etc. However the author brings attention to 2 people in the genealogy: Enoch, the seventh, and Noah, the tenth. Both of them are given the epithet “walked with God” and are the only two people in Genesis 1-11 that are given that epithet.
I find it peculiar how even in the number descriptions they are set apart. Enoch died at 365 years old. The average lifespan was 762 of the ten names given, and (excluding Enoch) ranged from 777-969 with very little variability: 365, 777, 895, 905, 905, 912, 930, 962 and 969. So enoch lived half the average length of the others.
Noah on the other hand begat children at 500 years old. The average begetting age was 139 of the ten names given, and (excluding Noah) ranged from 65-187 with very little variability: 65, 65, 70, 90, 105, 130, 182, 187. So Noah waited 3.5 times as long as the others to beget children.
Are these coincidental or is something else going on? I don’t suggest that these are symbolic people but perhaps they were using a number system that is foreign to us. This is not that far-fetched of an idea. Just a few hundred years ago people were using a base-20 counting system (as is evident in the KJV Bible and President Lincoln’s speech). And today their are other cultures and tribes using different methods. There’s a tribe in Africa that uses a base-12 system and another that uses a base-27 system.
I don’t find the years-to-month interpretation very satisfactory. Sure it makes the patriarchs have more realistic ages, but applying the same logic makes Mahalaleel and Enoch beget children at age 5!
This is another peculiar problem: the age at when they beget children children are not proportional to today either. It’s an interesting conundrum why it is that they all waited so long to “be fruitful and multiply”: 65-187 years; and Noah waited 5 centuries!
Many people are skeptical of numerological claims in the Bible. However Matthew in his genealogy in Chapter 1 skips over several kings for the purpose of getting three groups of 14 (see Matthew 1:17). Elsewhere in the Bible David is the youngest of eight sons (see 1st Samuel 16 and 17). But in second chronicles he is the seventh son, and the eighth son isn’t even mentioned. Is this a contradiction? It is only if you apply very strict modern criteria for understanding numbers & genealogies and applying it to ancient texts. Modern genealogies are not the same as biblical ones (the biblical ones often skip generations but moderns one don’t). In modern day we don’t apply extra meanings to numbers other than their quantitative values (other than a lingering suspicion of the number 13) - Hebrews and other cultures could use numbers precisely and literally… But they could also use numbers hyperbolically and symbolically.
I would apply literalism to the numbers in Genesis 5, only if other factors wouldn’t lead me to think I’m misunderstanding the text. We have understand the bible on it’s own terms… The dangers of applying 21st century ways of thinking to the text is that we run the risk of going away from the intended meaning to it’s intended audiences. If we always applied modern ways of thinking to the Bible the meaning would literally change over time as cultures change.
I would also suggest that it’s not a crime to compare the Bible to other ancient near eastern texts written from the same time period. It can help one understand difficult passages, metaphors, practices etc., that are hard for us to understand being 3,500 years removed from when it was written.
Also I’m not sure if the “120 year” longevity limit is applying to human individuals, per say, but maybe the time at which the flood will take place? There are very, very rare circumstances in today’s world of people living 1 or 2 years PAST 120.
-Tim
Timothy,
What I’ve gathered from researching the Hebrews is that at that time they were using a quasi-decimal number system. They had no zero (which is a problem that I won’t get into), and they used the alphabet for numbers. The first nine letters were used for numbers 1-9. Next 9 were used for the tens 10-90. The final four were used for the hundreds 100-400. They added digits together to get the number they desired (which is why it’s not really a positional decimal system). In English we could do this and have KE mean 25 or TPC be 273. The only exception for this in Hebrew is that they would write 15 and 16 as 9+6 and 9+7 instead of using the tens because those would look like writing the names of God.
~Connor
That’s very interesting Connor. I’ve gathered a similar understanding with Hebrew decimals. Also the Romans seem to have done this as well: all there numerals (IVXLCM) were also used as letters. I think the Hebrews (and also Greeks) called this “the gematria”.
What’s fascinating is when you go back to Matthew 1:17, and the three groups of 14. You would think by counting up the names you would get 42 (14+14+14). However you actually get 41. This is because (and this is very subtle) David’s name is counted twice. Is it a coincidence that along with Matthew’s obvious intention of coming up with three groups of 14 (several kings are skipped) that King David is also the 14th on the list. Or what about the fact that David’s name, in the gematria, adds up to 14?
The purpose of the genealogy is to show that Jesus is the messiah, going all the way back to David, and the prophecy of Him coming from the House of David. Matthew is also showing great emphasis on David (his name is counted twice in the generation-count and the first verse says “Jesus Christ son of David”) and the number 42.
Transcribing in this into numerological means might be something like this:
3 (the number for perfection) x 14 (the number of David, of which the messiah would come) = 42 (Jesus: God’s sovereign plan unfolding)
Rendered another way you could say:
6 (the number of man) x 7 (the number of God) = 42 (Jesus… Who is both God and Man as well the divine mediator between God and Man)
The connections one can make are incredibly fascinating.
Going back to Genesis consider the following: their are exactly 10 generations from Adam to Noah, and their are exactly 10 generations from Shem to Abraham.
Noah the tenth is the focal point of Genesis 6-9: the flood, the ark etc. It’s the sign of a completely new era.
Abraham the twentieth is the focal point of Genesis 12-24, as well as one of the most single important person in all the Bible. Abraham is also, a sign of a completely new era: God’s chosen people.
All the patriarchs, listed in the messianic-genealogies, that come between these two significant figures are skimmed over, and barely much is said about them: as if in transition to the main focal points of Genesis.
This to me seems to bring some evidence of the genealogies being stylized (Adam-Noah being 10, Shem-Abraham being 10 etc.). Not that they aren’t real people but that (similar to Matthew 1:17) people are skipped over to come up with significant numbers.
This of course could obviously be speculation, but it is something to think about. (For Matthew 1:17, however, it’s obvious that there are reasons why Matthew tries to come up with three groups of 14, other than just stating a historical fact — i.e., kings were skipped to add up to those numbers).
-Tim
Biblical Commentators have differed on this point for many years, so I would not call it a debunking. Since Noah started building the ark sometime after his 500th year, and it flooded in year 600, then the 120 is not likely accurate. From a logistical perspective, it makes more sense to attribute 120 to man’s lifespan.
Timothy, as a minor correction, Enoch did not live half the average lifespan of the others, but rather half the average lifespan of all, including himself. Average lifespan of the others was 907 years. We also cannot prove that Noah did not have other children previous to Shem Ham and Japheth. While we expect the oldest to be mentioned first, yet often in scripture we find cases of the youngest or younger attaining pre-eminence, such as Seth, Jacob, Isaac, Joseph and Judah, David, etc. Also, most females are not mentioned, yet we know they were born, even perhaps before the males.
While it is true there are only five different digits used for end of years of patriarchs, this is not statistically difficult since only nine numbers are available. In other words, the sample size is too small. If there were a hundred or 1000 people’s ages given, and only five ending digits used, then I would agree that this would seem to be a statistical anomaly.
There are 10 patriarchs listed… Adam-Noah. So their are 10 lifespans we are given: 365, 777, 895, 905, 910, 912, 930, 950, 962, and 969. The sum of these numbers are 7,665, so the average lifespan would be 766.5 (7,665 / 10) which is slightly over two times the average lifespan of Enoch; and the closest person to live to Enoch’s age was also slightly over two times the average lifespan.
I’m not sure why anyone would really conclude that Noah had other children? Did Noah not take all of his children on board with him on the Ark? Or did Noah have children prior to this time, and they died for some unexplained reason?
I would argue from the text that it very much implies Shem, Ham and Japheth were his ONLY children. In all the other nine patriarchs, including Enoch, it says “And he begat other sons and daughters.”. Noah, for some reason, has this omitted.
I agree with you. The younger taking preeminence over the older is very much a biblical trend. This happens 5 times in Genesis alone.
Abel is favored over Cain.
Isaac is favored over Ishmael.
Jacob is favored over Esau.
Joseph, youngest of eleven sons at that time, is the favorite.
Ephraim get’s Abraham’s blessing, rather than the firstborn Manasseh.
In other books we see the trend continues.
Moses is favored Aaron.
David is the youngest of 8 sons, and is the least likely to be king, yet becomes king anyway.
Solomon is favored over Adonijah.
The lifespan numbers we have are 10: Adam-Noah (I’m including Noah even though it doesn’t tell us that he died until Genesis 9). Secondly, we don’t have just 10 numbers available: we have 30 (I’m including the numbers that each patriarch begat children, how long they lived afterwards, and their total lifespans… in my analysis).
I agree with you that the biblical patriarchs had other kids. But even so… if they had dozens or hundreds of kids, it still does not explain the statistical anomaly, we see happening in the Messianic Line.
I disagree John. For one we have 30 numbers, not 10, and for seconds, I did an experiment with my own genealogy with the help of Ancestry. I arranged my 10 ancestors in the exact same fashion that the Bible portrays it. Using the same formula as well: a + b = c. I compared both number-data and posted my results in the Theology & Philosophy section, in a post called Proof of Sacred Numbers. The post itself is closed, but you can still read it.
I’m still working on Part Two.
-Tim