# Proof of Numerology Part Two

This is a continuation of what I wrote in a prior post called “Proof of Sacred Numbers”… don’t read this having not read the first part or you will be confused.

(now continuing where I left off in Part One…)

For further evidence of numerical significance in the Biblical patriarchs I will incorporate a new tactic. By taking each patriarch and the three numbers associated with that patriarch: the years he lived when his son was born, how many days he lived after that, and how many days he lived in total; I will calculate the greatest common denominator of the three numbers given.

What is the greatest common denominator?

This is when you take a set of numbers, and you find the largest number that can evenly fit into each of those numbers. For example, the greatest common denominator for 10 and 20 is 10: 10 can go into 10 one time, and 10 can go into 20 two times. The greatest common denominator for 6 and 9 would be 3: 3 can go into 6 two times, and 3 can go into 9 three times.

For the remainder of this topic I will refer to greatest common denominator as “GCD”

PS. The third number is not included in the equation, because it does not affect the GCD, because the third number is the sum of the first two numbers.

130 - 800 - 930
GCD = 10 — With a range of numbers from 65 - 969 (i.e., 905 numbers), there are 90 numbers in total that are divisible by 10 (these I will call candidate numbers). The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (905 / 90)^2 or 1 in 100 or 1%.

Seth
105 - 807 - 912
GCD = 3 — With a range of numbers from 65 - 969 (i.e., 905 numbers), there are 302 numbers in total that are divisible by 3. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (905 / 302)^2 or 1 in 9 or 11%.

Enos
090 - 815 - 905
GCD = 5 — With a range of numbers from 65 - 969 (i.e., 905 numbers), there are numbers 181 numbers in total that are divisible by 5. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (905 / 181)^2 or 1 in 25 or 4%.

Cainan
070 - 840 - 910
GCD = 70 — With a range of numbers from 65 - 969 (i.e., 905 numbers), there are 13 numbers in total that are divisible by 70. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (905 / 13)^2 or 1 in 4,800 or .02%

Mahalaleel
065 - 830 - 895
GCD = 5 — With a range of numbers from 65 - 969 (i.e., 905 numbers), there are numbers 181 numbers in total that are divisible by 5. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (905 / 181)^2 or 1 in 25 or 4%.

Jared
162 - 800 - 962
GCD = 2 — With a range of numbers from 65 - 969 (i.e., 905 numbers), there are numbers 452 numbers in total that are divisible by 5. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (905 / 452)^2 or 1 in 4 or 25%.

Enoch
065 - 300 - 365
GCD = 5 — With a range of numbers from 65 - 969 (i.e., 905 numbers), there are numbers 181 numbers in total that are divisible by 5. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (905 / 181)^2 or 1 in 25 or 4%.

Methuselah
187 - 782 - 969
GCD = 17 — With a range of numbers from 65 - 969 (i.e., 905 numbers), there are numbers 54 numbers in total that are divisible by 17. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (905 / 54)^2 or 1 in 280 or .357%.

Lamech
182 - 595 - 777
GCD = 7 — With a range of numbers from 65 - 969 (i.e., 905 numbers), there are numbers 129 numbers in total that are divisible by 7. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (905 / 129)^2 or 1 in 49 or 2%

Noah
500 - 350 - 950
GCD = 50 — With a range of numbers from 65 - 969 (i.e., 905 numbers), there are numbers 18 numbers in total that are divisible by 50. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (905 / 18)^2 or 1 in 2,500 or .04%

GCD numbers from the least probable to most probable in ascending order:

.02 - .04 - .357 - 1 - 2 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 11 - 25

Daniel-Donald

Daniel
35 - 29 - 64
No-GCD

Ephraim Sr.
22 - 50 - 72
GCD = 2 — With a range of numbers from 18 - 92 (i.e., 75 numbers), there are 43 numbers in total that are divisible by 2. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (75 / 43)^2 or 1 in 3 or 33%.

Ephraim Jr.
47 - 31 - 78
No-GCD

Moses Sr.
36 - 52 - 88
GCD = 4 — With a range of numbers from 18 - 92 (i.e., 75 numbers), there are 19 numbers in total that are divisible by 4. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (75 / 19)^2 or 1 in 15 or 6.67%.

Moses Jr.
37 - 49 - 86
No-GCD

Henry Sr.
34 - 51 - 85
GCD = 17 — With a range of numbers from 18 - 92 (i.e., 75 numbers), there are 4 numbers in total that are divisible by 17. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (75 / 4)^2 or 1 in 350 or .285%

Calvin
25 - 59 - 84
No-GCD

Henry Jr.
34 - 18 - 52
GCD = 2 — With a range of numbers from 18 - 92 (i.e., 75 numbers), there are 43 numbers in total that are divisible by 2. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (75 / 43)^2 or 1 in 3 or 33%.

Floyd
31 - 61 - 92
No-GCD

Donald
23 - 41 - 64
No-GCD

GCD numbers from least probable to most probable in ascending order:

.285 - 6.67 - 33 - 33

Notice how in the Adam-Noah genealogy every single set of numbers produced a GCD, while in the Daniel-Donald genealogy it only produced 4 out of 10 GCD. Notice also that in the Adam-Noah genealogy 4 of those GCD were significantly rare GCD (aka: greatest common denominators with a probably of 1% or lower). While in the Daniel-Donald genealogy only one of those sets produced a significantly rare GCD, and the other three were quite common.

What’s significant about Cainan’s set of numbers was not only that it produced the rarest GCD of all (an incredible .02%), but the GCD itself, 70, is biblically significant.

The number 70 is first mentioned in the idiom concerning vengeance, in Genesis 4 “If Cain be avenged seven-fold, truly Lamech seventy and seven-fold”

It’s the sum amount of nations listed in The Table of Nations of Genesis 10.

It’s the amount of Abraham’s progeny, towards the end of his life. Genesis 46:27 “And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.”

It is the age of which, Moses associates with brevity of life: Psalm 90:10 “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.”

The Shem-Abraham Genealogy

In this segment I will compare the next genealogy given in the Bible (Shem-Abraham) with that of my genealogy. Since the formula has slightly changed in Shem-Abraham genealogy, I will adjust my genealogy accordingly. Whereas as the first genealogy gave the formula a+b=c, the second genealogy drops the c. It only lists a (how old they were when they begat children) and b (how long they lived passed that point). Because of this we are dealing with 20 numbers vs. the previous 30 numbers. PS there is a slight deviation from the pattern in Terah, and of Abraham, where it doesn’t say “and the days after he begat were such ‘n’ such” but rather “all the days of his life were such ‘n’ such”. Those numbers I will be put in italics.

Also in the case of Abraham I’m writing down the age that he begot the promised seed “Isaac”, rather than the age he begot Ishmael.

The Shem-Abraham Genealogy is as follows:

Shem
100 - 500

035 - 403

Salah
030 - 403

Eber
034 - 430

Peleg
030 - 209

Reu
032 - 207

Serug
030 - 200

Nahor
029 - 119

Terah
070 - 205 (in total)

Abraham
100 - 175 (in total)

My Genealogy

Daniel
35 - 29

Ephraim Sr.
22 - 50

Ephraim Jr.
47 - 31

Moses Sr.
36 - 52

Moses Jr.
37 - 49

Henry Sr.
34 - 51

Calvin
25 - 59

Henry Jr.
34 - 18

Floyd
31 - 92 (in total)

Donald
23 - 64 (in total)

Since I’m adding a third genealogy into the mix I will be making additional comparisons: comparing the Shem-Abraham genealogy to the modern genealogical model, as well as the Shem-Abraham to the Adam-Noah.

The Shem-Abraham number distribution is as follows:

Numbers ending in 0 — 100, 30, 30, 30, 70, 100, 500, 430, 200 — 9 numbers in total.

Numbers ending in 2 — 32 — 1 number in total.

Numbers ending in 3 — 403, 403, — 2 numbers in total.

Numbers ending in 4 — 34 — 1 number in total.

Numbers ending in 5 — 35, 205, 175 — 3 numbers in total.

Numbers ending in 7 — 207 — 1 number in total.

Numbers ending in 9 — 29, 119, 209 — 3 numbers in total.

My Genealogy:

Numbers ending in 0 — 50 — 1 number in total.

Numbers ending in 1 — 31, 31, 51 — 3 numbers in total.

Numbers ending in 2 — 22, 92 — 2 numbers in total.

Numbers ending in 3 — 23 — 1 number in total.

Numbers ending in 4 — 34, 34, 64 — 3 numbers in total.

Numbers ending in 5 — 35, 25 — 2 numbers in total.

Numbers ending in 6 — 36 — 1 number in total.

Numbers ending in 7 — 47, 37 — 2 numbers in total.

Numbers ending in 8 — 18 — 1 number in total.

Numbers ending in 9 — 29, 49, 59, — 3 numbers in total.

How does Shem-Abraham compare to Adam-Noah in number distribution? In Adam-Noah we find half the digits being excluded (an improbability akin to flipping a coin 30 times in a row and them all turning up heads: or 1 in 2^30 or 1 in a billion). In Shem-Abraham we have the appearance of 7 digits: 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9. While in Adam-Noah we have the appearance of 5 digits: 0, 2, 5, 7 and 9. The second biblical genealogy uses all the digits common to the first, with the interesting addition of 3 and 4, as well as continuing the strange omission of numbers 1, 6, and 8 in each . The Adam-Noah had an especial tendency towards 0 and 5 (taking 21 out of the 30 numbers: or 70%), while Shem-Abraham maintained the general tendency towards 0 (taking up 9 out of the 20 numbers: or 45%) while dropping slightly the tendency towards 5 (Shem-Abraham having only 3 out of 20 numbers ending with 5: or 15% — vs. Adam-Noah taking up 8 out of 30 numbers: or 27%). Remember that the average appearance of any particular digit is 2 (or 20 / 10), so the appearance of the digit 0 appearing 9 times, which is 4.5 times the average, is significant. Adding the new -3 and -4 numbers, to the biblical repertoire, we have an interesting repetition of the number 403, in Aprhaxad and Salah.

Where number distribution is concerned it seems Shem-Abraham is falling slightly away from the use of sacred numbers, and more into the realm of real numbers. However, when comparing Shem-Abraham to my modern genealogy, we can see there is definitely some peculiar numbers still being involved. For instance in my genealogy (for now on I will call Daniel-Donald) it still maintains the appearance of all 10 digits, at least once, even after having eliminated a third of the numbers, in the equation. Shem-Abraham only includes 7 out of 10 digits. The probability of this occurring is expressed by the following equation: 1 / (10^20 / 7^20) or 1 in 1,253, approximately. A still unlikely scenario, but not nearly as astronomical as the improbability proposed in Adam-Noah, namely 1 in a billion. One could further expound the equation by adding up the 30 numbers given in Adam-Noah with the 20 numbers in Shem-Abraham: 50 numbers in total. And then further calculating the probability of 50 random numbers producing 7 out of 10 digits, and missing digits 1, 6 and 8? The equation would be written like this: (10 / 7)^50 or 1 in 55, 602, 971 or .00000179%.

Next is the comparison of the number distributions of repeated numbers.

Shem-Abraham

100, 100, 30, 30, 30, 403, 403, — 3 numbers in total.

Daniel-Donald

31, 31, 34, 34, — 2 numbers in total.

In Adam-Noah we had 2 repeated numbers, and in Shem-Abraham we have 3 repeated numbers. The fact that the Shem-Abraham dropped a third of the numbers used in Adam-Noah yet produced more repetitions of numbers is significant. Notice also, that we have something new: the number 30 is the first number to be repeated 3 times.

In Daniel-Donald, the number of duplicates decreased by one with the elimination of a third of the numbers — which is the exact opposite of what took place in the Shem-Abraham to Adam-Noah genealogy.

Next I will compare the age-numbers that refer to begetting, in both sets, and arrange them from least to greatest.

Shem-Abraham:

29, 30, 30, 30, 32, 34, 35, 70, 100, 100

Daniel-Donald:

22, 23, 25, 31, 34, 34, 35, 36, 37, 47

In Shem-Abraham we seem to be dwindling down into more realistic numbers… however, like Adam-Noah we see that gradual incline of numbers and then a great “leap”. In the first 7 numbers we a steady incline from 29-35, and then a jump into 70, 100, 100. Who do those numbers belong too? The 100 belongs to Abraham, and the the other 100 belongs to Shem. It’s curious how both of these play a significant role in the biblical narrative: Shem is one of the three sons that were in the Ark. Shem is part of the messianic line that leads to Jesus. Shem is where we get the word “Semitic” or “Semite”. And lastly, Shem is spoken of in part of the prophecy at the end of Genesis 9:25-27 "
And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." Abraham is the father of many nations. Curious also how both Shem and Abraham share the number “100” and both appear on opposites sides of the spectrum of the biblical narrative. The person who shares the number 70, Terah, also plays an above-average role in the Bible. He was the father of Abraham and in immediate relation with him.

Now, I will compare the age-numbers that refer to how many days they live after they had children, in both sets, and arrange them from least to greatest.

Shem-Abraham:

119, 175, 200, 205, 207, 209, 403, 403, 430, 500

Daniel-Donald

18, 29, 31, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 64, 92

Although the lifespans of these patriarchs are incredibly long it’s interesting how many of their ages (the ones that fall in the 200 range) differ from only a couple years. We have the very numerically significant number, 500, again pointing to a biblical person, Shem, who has a very important role in the Bible. The repetition of 403 is strange to me, in how unlikely that would to occur. And the fact that both numbers end in 3 (the number 3 never once appearing in the 30 numbers of the Adam-Noah genealogy).

My next comparison will be the ratio of significant numbers, given our base-10 counting system, and the context of the genealogical account. How many numbers are divisible by 100, in the biblical genealogy vs. how many numbers are divisible by 10 in the modern genealogy?

Shem-Abraham:

100, 100, 500, 200

Daniel-Donald

50

Notice how Shem-Abraham shares the same amount of numerically significant numbers as does Adam-Noah. Yet we just eliminated a third of the numbers (the number-set is now 20 instead of 30), thereby decreasing the odds substantially… nonetheless the Biblical account tends to keep these numbers.

Now I will once again be giving the GCD (greatest common denominator) data.

Shem-Abraham

Shem
100 - 500
GCD = 100 — With a range of numbers from 29 - 500 (i.e., 472 numbers), there are 5 numbers in total that are divisible by 100. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (472 / 5)^2 or 1 in 8,900 or .011%

035 - 403
No-GCD

Salah
030 - 403
No-GCD

Eber
034 - 430
GCD = 2 — With a range of numbers from 29 - 500 (i.e., 472 numbers), there are 236 numbers in total that are divisible by 2. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (472 / 236)^2 or 1 in 4 or 25%.

Peleg
030 - 209
No-GCD

Reu
032 - 207
No-GCD

Serug
030 - 200
GCD = 5 — With a range of numbers from 29 - 500 (i.e., 472 numbers), there are 100 numbers in total that are divisible by 5. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (472 / 100)^2 or 1 in 22 or 4.54%.

Nahor
029 - 119
No-GCD

Terah
070 - 205 (in total)
GCD = 5 — With a range of numbers from 29 - 500 (i.e., 472 numbers), there are 100 numbers in total that are divisible by 5. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (472 / 100)^2 or 1 in 22 or 4.54%.

Abraham
100 - 175 (in total)
GCD = 25 — With a range of numbers from 29 - 500 (i.e., 472 numbers), there are 19 numbers in total that are divisible by 25. The likelihood of coming up with two candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (472 / 19)^2 or 1 in 617 or .16%.

GCD numbers from least probable to most probable in ascending order:

.011 - .16 - 4.54 - 4.54 - 25

Daniel-Donald Revised

Daniel
35 - 29
No-GCD

Ephraim Sr.
22 - 50
GCD = 2 — With a range of numbers from 18 - 92 (i.e., 75 numbers), there are 43 numbers in total that are divisible by 2. The likelihood of coming up with three candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (75 / 43)^3 or 1 in 5 or 20%.

Ephraim Jr.
47 - 31
No-GCD

Moses Sr.
36 - 52
GCD = 4 — With a range of numbers from 18 - 92 (i.e., 75 numbers), there are 19 numbers in total that are divisible by 4. The likelihood of coming up with three candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (75 / 19)^3 or 1 in 61 or 1.62%.

Moses Jr.
37 - 49
No-GCD

Henry Sr.
34 - 51
GCD = 17 — With a range of numbers from 18 - 92 (i.e., 75 numbers), there are 4 numbers in total that are divisible by 17. The likelihood of coming up with three candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (75 / 4)^3 or 1 in 6,591 or .015%

Calvin
25 - 59
No-GCD

Henry Jr.
34 - 18
GCD = 2 — With a range of numbers from 18 - 92 (i.e., 75 numbers), there are 43 numbers in total that are divisible by 2. The likelihood of coming up with three candidate numbers, in succession, are as follows: 1 in (75 / 43)^3 or 1 in 5 or 20%.

Floyd
31 - 92 (in total)
No-GCD

Donald
23 - 64 (in total)
No-GCD

GCD numbers from least probable to most probable in ascending order:

.015 - 1.62 - 20 - 20

How does this compare to the Adam-Noah genealogy? In the Adam-Noah the numbers produced 10 GCD numbers, 4 of which were significantly rare GCD. Whereas the Shem-Abraham produced only 5 GCD, 2 of which were significantly rare GCD.

This would seem to indicate that, although the numbers in the Shem-Abraham genealogy, produce significant numbers — as far as genealogies go — that we are deviating from the sacred numbers so prevalent in Genesis 5, and more towards the realm of “real numbers”… not a sudden leap from “symbolic” to “natural”, but a transition.

Before moving on, I would like to talk about the biblical character Eber, and his important role in the Bible. Keep in mind, this will take a little bit to explain.

Eber, Hebron and Hebrew

In Genesis 13:18 we read “Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD.” And in Genesis 23:2 “And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan : and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her” And last in Genesis 23:19 “And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan : and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her”

The word Hebron means “association”…

Next, in Genesis we read, in chapter 14, verse 13 “And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eschol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.”

This is the very first mention of “Hebrew” in the Bible. But where does the word “Hebrew” come from? We know from chapter 13 Abraham was “dwelling the in plains of Mamre, which is Hebron”, next we are told “Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre”… We can infer from the similar pronunciation that HEBREW is derived from HEBRON.

Hebrew means “one from afar”, which fits Abraham who left Ur of the Chaldees to the “land that God will show him”.

Eber consequently means “a region beyond” and, according to this one article “A primitive root; to cross over; used very widely of any transition (literally or figuratively; transitively, intransitively, intensively or causatively)…”

In the table of Nations, the very first mention of the biblical character is in Genesis 10:21 “Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.” Notice that this verse is designating “the children of Eber” to be a very specific people-group. In does not say “the father of all the children of Serug” or “the father of all the children of Peleg”, which are part of the same messianic line. But it singles out Eber: great-grandson of Shem and great-great-great-great grandfather of Abraham. Hence we can also infer that Eber is the ancestor of the people-group called “Hebrews”. In the same sense that Judah is the ancestor of the people-group called “Jews”. The Hebrew word for “Hebrew”, according to the Hebrew Dictionary Lexicon-Concordance is “‘Ibry {ib-ree’} — a descendant of Eber, an Eberite, also a term for Israelites.”

In Genesis 15:13 we read "Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years”. But in Exodus 12:40 we read “Now the sojourn of the children of Israel, who lived in Egypt, were four hundred and thirty years.” Some may say that 430 vs. 400 is a contradiction. However, this could very well just be following “the rule of approximations”. For instance if I go to the store and a buy a bag of apples for \$5.27, and then go back home and tell my family that I spent 5 bucks at the store, no one would accuse me of being deceptive or misleading… because 5 dollars is the rounded down answer of \$5.27. So in all likelihood, the prophecy that says “400 hundred years” is an approximate value of the true number 430.

Now why is any of this significant? It’s because the biblical character Eber, who is shown to be the ancestor of the Hebrew people (of which the word Hebrew is derived from) lived to be 430 years; and consequently the Hebrew people were victim to 430 years in hard bondage — the most significant event to have happened to the Hebrew people.

One might ask, is this coincidence? lucky chance?

That’s for you to decide…

The Rest of Genesis

So far we’ve covered the bulk of age-numbers in Genesis: the genealogies of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. This covers the major territory of Genesis, as far as numbers go… 50 in total. The rest of the narrative from chapter 12-50 doesn’t deal with age-numbers as much since that’s not its main focus. Nonetheless the age-numbers are there, and thus it will be part of this analysis.

The Age-Numbers of the rest of Genesis (which I will call ROG numbers, for short: rest of Genesis) are as follows:

Genesis 12:9 “… And Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran.”

Genesis 16:16 “… And Abram was 86 years old when he begot Ishmael.”

Genesis 17:17 “… and shall Sarah, being 90 years old, bear?”

Genesis 17:24 “And Abram was 99, when he was circumcised in the foreskin.”

Genesis 23:1 “And all the days of Sarah was 127.”

Genesis 25:17 “And all the days of Ishmael was 137.”

Genesis 25:20 “Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebekah.”

Genesis 25:26 “Isaac was 60 years old when he had children.”

Genesis 26:34 “Esau was 40 years old when he took to wife Judith and Beeri, both Hittites.”

Genesis 35:28 “And the days of Isaac was 180.”

Genesis 37:2 “Joseph, being 17 years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren…”

Genesis 41:46 “And Joseph was 30 years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt.”

Genesis 47:9 “And Jacob said unto Pharaoh: the days of the years of my pilgrimage are 130.”

Genesis 47:28 “And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt 17 years…”

Genesis 47:28 “… and all the days of Jacob was 147.”

Genesis 50:22 “… And Joseph lived 110 years.”

We have 16 age-numbers in total for ROG, 20 for Shem-Abraham and 30 for Adam-Noah. Making it 66 in total.

The number distribution of ROG is as follows:

Numbers ending in 0 — 90, 40, 60, 40, 180, 30, 130, 110 — 8 numbers in total.

Numbers ending in 5 — 75 — 1 number in total.

Numbers ending in 6 — 86 — 1 number in total.

Numbers ending in 7 — 127, 137, 17, 17, 147 — 5 numbers in total.

Numbers ending in 9 — 99 — 1 number in total.

Since we have a set of 16 numbers, the average number distribution should roughly be 2 (or 16 / 10). In this instance we still have a tendency towards 0, which takes up half the total numbers, and a slightly tendency towards 7 (two and a half times the average), 7 also being one of the original 5 digits in Adam-Noah. We also have the very first appearance of the digit 6, and don’t see any -3 and -4 digits common to Shem-Abraham. Similar to Genesis 5 we only have 5 digits showing up, however this is not that isn’t nearly as strange seeing as how the set of numbers is now 16, rather than 30.

We have two re-occurring numbers here, 40 and 17, both appearing twice. 40 is a rather interesting number, as far as the Bible goes… it’s occurrence in the Bible is rather rampant actually.

In Noah’s Flood it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.

The process of Jacob’s embalming was 40 days.

The children of Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years.

Moses spoke with God on Mount Sinai for 40 days.

Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness.

Jonah gave the people at Nineveh a 40 day warning, before God would overthrow them.

And the list goes on…

How does the ROG numbers stack up when we consider the first two sets of numbers in Genesis 5 and 11?

Genesis 5 has 30 age-numbers… but only 5 digits: 0, 2, 5, 7 and 9

Genesis 11 has 20 age-numbers… but only 7 digits: 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9. (All the one’s in common with the first genealogy plus the addition of 3 and 4)

The ROG has 16 age-numbers… but only 5 digits: 0, 5, 6, 7, and 9.

The general tendency is towards digits 0, 2, 5, 7 and 9, with rare additions of 3 and 4 in Genesis 11, and one instance of 6 in Genesis 16. But even after 66 age-numbers we still have yet to see a single age-number than ends with 1 or 8. In the Daniel-Donald genealogy it included all digits at least once, having a set of 30 numbers — contrary to Genesis 5 that only had 5 digits. The Daniel-Donald genealogy still maintained the appearance of all digits at least once, even after removing a third of them — contrary to Genesis 11 that only had 7 digits. And still after all the total age-numbers in the book of Genesis we still don’t have all the digits. The odds of this happening can be expressed by the following equation: (10 / 8)^66 or 1 in 2,500,000 or .00004 %.

The total distribution of ALL age-numbers in Genesis is as follows:

Numbers ending in 0 — 130, 90, 70, 500, 800, 840, 830, 800, 300, 930, 910, 350, 950, 100, 30, 30, 30, 70, 100, 500, 430, 200 90, 40, 60, 40, 180, 30, 130, 110 — 30 numbers in total

Numbers ending in 1 — non-existent

Numbers ending in 2 — 22, 52, 72, 52, 92, 32 — 6 numbers in total

Numbers ending in 3 — 403, 403, — 2 numbers in total

Numbers ending in 4 — 34 — 1 number in total

Numbers ending in 5 — 105, 65, 65, 815, 595, 905, 895, 365, 35, 205, 175 — 12 numbers in total

Numbers ending in 6 — 86 — 1 number in total

Numbers ending in 7 — 187, 807, 777 207 127, 137, 17, 17, 147 — 9 numbers in total

Numbers ending in 8 — non-existent

Numbers ending in 9 — 969, 29, 119, 209 99 — 5 numbers in total

Even after being given all the data of Genesis, we still have 0 taking up half the numbers (30 out of 66 or 45%), and the number 5 appearing in an above average frequency (12 out of 66 or 18%). The most common digits in all of Genesis are still the same digits that we see in Genesis 5…

Most popular digit, from least to greatest:

1 - 8 - 4 - 6 - 3 - 9 - 2 - 7 - 5 - 0

Rate of digit appearance:

0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 9 - 12 - 30

The total amount of age-numbers that deviate from the original set in Genesis (0, 2, 5, 7 and 9) are 4. This means that 94% of all the age-numbers in Genesis are still keeping in line with the general trend set up in in Genesis 5, with a 6% deviation.

(continued in Comment form… my post apparently was too long!)

For anyone who looks at these numbers long enough, one can’t help but notice a gradual decline from extreme-longevity to that of what we see today. A great many people have noticed this, and have developed theories as to why this is. What’s interesting is that the decline happens right after the flood… which leads to even more speculation. Some theorize that it might have something to do with the flood drastically changing the world, and atmosphere, as we know it today. Perhaps there is some physical cause that made us decline in age and longevity? Others might theorize that it’s not really a physical cause, but a supernatural one. Perhaps because of the fallen state of man, we are gradually losing God’s gift of long life, due to sin.

Whatever the reason for the gradual decline it is certainly a phenomenon. However, I would argue a possible third approach to this problem. Based on my studies of the numbers in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 there seems to be a certain cohesion… they show numerically significant numbers that one would not expect to find, were they written like a 21st century genealogy. As the lifespans seem to decline, so do too, the frequency of sacred/symbolic numbers, and the increase in more real, more random, numbers.

Physical causes is a possibility to the decline of longevity… however this does not explain the phenomenon we see in Genesis 5 of people begetting children, at very old ages: 65 - 500. This is not just a problem with “how is it physically possible”, but more so why did they wait so long to have children? Why did Noah, in particular, wait 5 centuries?

The average begetting age of the Biblical patriarch is 157, and the very youngest age for begetting that’s recorded is 65. Surely if they were youthful and spry, capable of living 10 times as long as us, then they were surely capable of producing offspring at the normal age?

The data also doesn’t fit Abraham’s reaction to God when He tells him that even at his old age (100 years) he will beget a son. Nor does it fit with Sarah’s response about her being too old to bear children at age 100 (in the Genesis account, she is said to have “laughed at the idea”). All of this is considered quite miraculous… but it’s not regarded as miraculous when Noah begets children at 500? or Shem at 100?

It’s important to note that at the time of Abraham’s calling, when you put all the dates of the patriarchs in Genesis 11 together, you will see that Abraham’s great-great-great-great grandfather Eber, his great-great-great-great-great grandfather Selah, his great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather Arphaxad, and even SHEM, one generation removed from the Flood, are all of them, still alive at this point.

The average begetting age of the post-flood patriarchs changes significantly. Whereas the average begetting age in Genesis 5 is 157, the average begetting age in Genesis 11 is 49 — with Shem, Terah, and Noah being the ones who are exceptional in the age in which they bear children. From 157 - 49 is a 69% decline in the wait to have children.

The other comment I would like to make is that it seems odd that nobody in the Biblical narrative, ever mentions how strange it is that people are losing their longevity? Or ponders why this might be the case? In fact, when people make comments about longevity, their words are sober. In Psalm 90, the only Psalm assigned to Moses, it says “The days of our years are threescore and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away” Moses is saying that we live and die around age 70, and if were lucky we will make it to age 80.

So in conclusion, where genealogical records are concerned, it seems the number of years that a person lived can have more than one meaning: a symbolic, sacred or hyperbolic meaning. When we read these genealogies we notice numbers that are exceptionally high, and yet, when the biblical characters make comments regarding age, they are more sobering.

Could it be that when ancient Hebrews talk about “longevity”, “lifespan” in their day-to-day conversation they are meaning more close to what we would mean today? That life is short, and it goes away quickly etc. But when they record ages in their records they are not necessarily concerned with exactness and literalness as we would be in today’s modern world?

Why are numbers Sacred?

1 Like

@Patrick

Correction. Proof of ANE Numerology. Lol…

The reason I wrote “sacred numbers” is simply because when you read articles and such that go into detail on this topic, they call it “sacred numbers”. Not because they themselves believed in them. But just that Ancients did assign other meanings beside those of a quantitative value.

-Tim

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.