Significance Of Numbers In The Scriptures

[Freedom]

I have read articles over the years about how someones age may be recorded, and that we should not put too much merit into any numbers, particularly in the old testament. I have looked high and low for this research recently but have come up empty handed. For example, the bible states that Adam lived to the age of 930. The book of Mormon records that each army of the Nephites was a round number of 10,000. From my research into mezzo america, genealogy was presented not to set out your family tree but rather to establish your royal lineage. If you did not have a god or a king in your past, you added one and made adjustments accordingly. The equivalent today is getting a business license to open up shop. It wasn't lying, it was simply a requirement to be a ruler.

So, if the book says there are 20 generations between you and Nephi, it could have actualy been 50, or none at all. Likewise with genealogies back to Adam. You may have been related to him 300 generations back, but such a distance makes your line rather weak. The solution? remove 250 generations and you are of royal blood. The consequence, of course, is that we have no clear idea of how long Adam actually lived.

Any thoughts on this or suggestions on where to look?

[Freedom]

So nobody has ever come across any such research? This seems like pretty significant because, taking the numbers literally poses a problem in studying the scriptures and accepting science.

[danielwoods]

So nobody has ever come across any such research? This seems like pretty significant because, taking the numbers literally poses a problem in studying the scriptures and accepting science.

Why is it a problem to accept that the testimony that some lived 900 or 600 or 200 years is accurate?

Simply because it's not observed today doesn't demonstrate that it couldn't have happened in the past?

[Freedom]

Why is it a problem to accept that the testimony that some lived 900 or 600 or 200 years is accurate?

Simply because it's not observed today doesn't demonstrate that it couldn't have happened in the past?

Because it is an ancient document which requires context, both cultural and linguistic. For example, once we understand the significance of the numbers 3, 4 & 10 then multiples of these numbers make much more sense such as 7, 12, 70, 1,000, 144,000 ect. Likewise, the sizes of the armies recorded in the scriptures can also make sense since the numbers recorded to not reconcile with the numbers reported outside the bible.

It is not that they did not live that long, but that these numbers may have meant something different than just their age. Understanding the context brings greater meaning.

[danielwoods]

Because it is an ancient document which requires context, both cultural and linguistic. For example, once we understand the significance of the numbers 3, 4 & 10 then multiples of these numbers make much more sense such as 7, 12, 70, 1,000, 144,000 ect. Likewise, the sizes of the armies recorded in the scriptures can also make sense since the numbers recorded to not reconcile with the numbers reported outside the bible.

It is not that they did not live that long, but that these numbers may have meant something different than just their age. Understanding the context brings greater meaning.

 

Ok.

[Freedom]

here is an example of some consideration of numbers. It is rather brief but provides a starting point.

http://www.unwsp.edu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=209dd793-8165-4652-b25e-3b2754820504&groupId=2010542

[danielwoods]

here is an example of some consideration of numbers. It is rather brief but provides a starting point.

http://www.unwsp.edu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=209dd793-8165-4652-b25e-3b2754820504&groupId=2010542

 

 

i think he has a good point. 

[theplains]

Because it is an ancient document which requires context, both cultural and linguistic. For example, once we understand the significance of the numbers 3, 4 & 10 then multiples of these numbers make much more sense such as 7, 12, 70, 1,000, 144,000.

 

Can you explain the significance of the numbers 3,4, and 10 using scripture?  Have you come across

any other significant numbers?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Freedom]

I am no scholar, but as I understand it, they have the following significant:

3 = spiritual (i.e. godhead, 3 degrees of glory)

4 = temporal (i.e. 4 corners of the earth)

10 = whole or perfect

Multiplying the number brings more power or significance than adding.

3+4 = 7 as in 7 creative periods, 7 days of the week.

3*4 = 12 as in the quorum of 12 apostles

(3+4)*10 = 70 as in the quorum of the 70

12*12*1000 = 144,000. An extreme representation of a perfect quorum.

4*10 = 40 a complete or perfect physical experience. So, fasting for 40 days is not actually 960 hours of going without food, but rather a representation of how pure and complete the fast was. Likewise, Israel may not have been in the wilderness for 40 years, but for a complete physical duration sufficiently long to accomplish God's designs. It is a bit too convenient that Moses's life is divided up into perfect 40 year intervals.

3*10 = 30 a complete or perfect spiritual experience. Judas' 30 pieces of silver represented his complete spiritual downfall. The Savior's ministry began when he was 30 years of age ect

Of course, we should not try find symbolism where none is intended. For example, Adam lived 930 years. Although this is a multiple of both 3 & 10, the resulting quotient is 31. I do not see much significance in this number.

[Garden Girl]

Can you explain the significance of the numbers 3,4, and 10 using scripture?  Have you come across

any other significant numbers?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

The number 40... it rained 40 days/40 nights.... Moses and Israelites wandered 40 years in desert...  Jesus spent 40 days with the apostles after his resurection... etc... IMO the number 40 was used to denote an unspecified time.

 

Edit to add:  Sorry Freedom, I just saw the next to last number in your list... 40... where I see you address this number... 

 

GG

Edited November 2, 2013 by Garden Girl

[Tiki]

I have read articles over the years about how someones age may be recorded, and that we should not put too much merit into any numbers, particularly in the old testament. I have looked high and low for this research recently but have come up empty handed. For example, the bible states that Adam lived to the age of 930..

How about when MONTHS are recorded? 134 years and 4 MONTHS

D&C 197:44 "Enos was ordained at the age of one hundred and thirty-four years and four months, by the hand of Adam."

If months are recorded, then you can bet the number of years are correct as well.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Tiki

[Freedom]

How about when MONTHS are recorded? 134 years and 4 MONTHS

D&C 197:44 "Enos was ordained at the age of one hundred and thirty-four years and four months, by the hand of Adam."

If months are recorded, then you can bet the number of years are correct as well.

Could be, but we shouldn't apply modern standards of dating to an ancient document. Today we know if someone says 232 days 15 hours 22 minutes they mean 232 days 15 hours and 22 minutes. But if someone says a dozen it could mean anywhere from 5 to 20. Just a large group but not so big that it becomes a crowd. We can say see you next year but that does not mean 365 days from now. It could mean just just a few days if you are saying it to someone on December 27th. So today we know what expressions are relative and which exact, but we shouldn't apply our standards to other cultures and other times. So my question is, is there reason to question the numbers.

[Freedom]

How about when MONTHS are recorded? 134 years and 4 MONTHS

D&C 197:44 "Enos was ordained at the age of one hundred and thirty-four years and four months, by the hand of Adam."

If months are recorded, then you can bet the number of years are correct as well.

Could be, but we shouldn't apply modern standards of dating to an ancient document. Today we know if someone says 232 days 15 hours 22 minutes they mean 232 days 15 hours and 22 minutes. But if someone says a dozen it could mean anywhere from 5 to 20. Just a large group but not so big that it becomes a crowd. We can say see you next year but that does not mean 365 days from now. It could mean just just a few days if you are saying it to someone on December 27th. So today we know what expressions are relative and which exact, but we shouldn't apply our standards to other cultures and other times. So my question is, is there reason to question the numbers.

[erdoch]

Interesting questions. I do find it hard to believe that people anciently lived to be several hundreds years old, as claimed in both Genesis and in Joseph Smith's confirmations and revisions of how old the patriarchs were in the JST and D&C. I think the idea of ancient people living longer has its origins in myth more than in reality - and corresponds with, for example, Sumerian mythology on kings living for tens of thousands of years.

 

Though not as extreme of a time span, we find a similar problem in the Book of Mormon, where the chronology described between 600 and 130 BC means that at least a couple of the BM record keepers must have lived much longer than people anciently did on average. (Bear in mind that we live longer today than we ever have before and that 50 years was a full life anciently). Case in point: Enos says he "began to be old" 179 years after Lehi left Jerusalem (Enos 1:25). Remember that Enos' own father, Jacob, was born within 8 years of Lehi leaving Jerusalem and that, if Enos had been born when his dad was, say, 40, he would be at least 131 years old at this point. 

 

In the case of the Book of Mormon I suspect that rather than Enos living an extremely long life for his time, that the Enos of the Book of Enos is not the same person as the Enos Jacob talks about in Jacob 7:27 but that perhaps there were two people by the name of Enos, Enos2 being the son of Enos1 and therefore the grandson of Jacob (makes sense when compared with Alma1 and Alma2, Nephi3 and Nephi4, etc.). That is my way of solving for the Book of Mormon on long lifespans. As for the Book of Ether, the chronology itself is at least somewhat suspect as the "descendant of" and "son of" verses in chapter 1 do not correspond exactly with those same terms used in the rest of the book. 

 

As for the Bible, I take most of those numbers as pure myth - nothing historical about them. It doesn't bother me too much that Israelite religion (and its extension in Nephite religion) was partly founded on myth though. That's how it is for every culture and civilization. What does bother me is when some conservative Mormons think that those numbers are real, that there was no death before Adam and that evolution and dinosaurs are Satanic inventions. 

 

The only thing that I have not reconciled in my mind is why, if those numbers are pure myth, are they repeated in modern revelation, especially D&C 107? And I'm not sure I have the answer. Is the Lord interacting with mythical history here? Or are we forced to consider Mahalaleel to be 496 years old in terms of solar years when he was ordained by an even older Adam? My tentative answer is that we should not regard revelation as being as inerrant as we have traditionally assumed it to be, and that God reveals Himself gradually and incompletely through mortals such as Joseph Smith. Though I am unclear as to how far to go in such a more liberal interpretation of revelation. 

 

Bottom line: the big numbers do impact our understanding of revealed history and of the nature of revelation itself. 

[Tiki]

Could be, but we shouldn't apply modern standards of dating to an ancient document. Today we know if someone says 232 days 15 hours 22 minutes they mean 232 days 15 hours and 22 minutes. But if someone says a dozen it could mean anywhere from 5 to 20. Just a large group but not so big that it becomes a crowd. We can say see you next year but that does not mean 365 days from now. It could mean just just a few days if you are saying it to someone on December 27th. So today we know what expressions are relative and which exact, but we shouldn't apply our standards to other cultures and other times. So my question is, is there reason to question the numbers.

I didn't realize D&C 107 was an ancient document. :/

[ksfisher]

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf

This a a helpful paper that I ran across a few years ago dealing with numbers in the scriptures.

[Tiki]

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf

This a a helpful paper that I ran across a few years ago dealing with numbers in the scriptures.

It's good to know Geologist Carol Hill takes precedence over the revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

She's currently pursuing geologic studies in the Grand Canyon where she is apt to find gospel altering information for D&C 107 and maybe some arrowheads, clay pots, mud dwellings, and a hiker's old boot.

 

You are out of the thread.  Clean up the attitude.

[ksfisher]

It's good to know Geologist Carol Hill takes precedence over the revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

She's currently pursuing geologic studies in the Grand Canyon where she is apt to find gospel altering information for D&C 107 and maybe some arrowheads, clay pots, mud dwellings, and a hiker's old boot.

Do you ever have anything positive to add to any discussion?

[ERayR]

Because it is an ancient document which requires context, both cultural and linguistic. For example, once we understand the significance of the numbers 3, 4 & 10 then multiples of these numbers make much more sense such as 7, 12, 70, 1,000, 144,000 ect. Likewise, the sizes of the armies recorded in the scriptures can also make sense since the numbers recorded to not reconcile with the numbers reported outside the bible.

It is not that they did not live that long, but that these numbers may have meant something different than just their age. Understanding the context brings greater meaning.

 

Why is the biblical numbers always suspect?  Perhaps it is the non-biblical numbers that are in error.  That is something that has always puzzled me.

[Freedom]

Why is the biblical numbers always suspect?  Perhaps it is the non-biblical numbers that are in error.  That is something that has always puzzled me.

The numbers are not suspect, but rather our modern perception of them that are suspect.

[Freedom]

I didn't realize D&C 107 was an ancient document. :/

The D&C are filled with references that we do not understand because it follows the pattern of ancient revelation and uses ancient symbols that predate our modern notion of language. There is a difference between rejecting the scriptures because of what science tells us and being open minded enough to recognize that both the knowledge of science and the knowledge of the scriptures come from the same source. The discoveries coming to light through archaeology are not a trick from Satan. These artifacts are not found through the worshiping of idols but rather from the God-ordered pursuit of knowledge. I accept the numbers as real numbers, I just don't know what they mean. Is this their actual age, or is there something we are missing? For example, Isaiah tells us that an angel gave him a hot coal to eat. We know now this is a temple vision and the reference is symbolic.

[Freedom]

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf

This a a helpful paper that I ran across a few years ago dealing with numbers in the scriptures.

Thanks. This looks very interesting. I will find the time this week to read it.

[ERayR]

The numbers are not suspect, but rather our modern perception of them that are suspect.

 

Then why is the modern perception of biblical numbers always suspect?  Why not suspect the non-biblical numbers? 

[Freedom]

Then why is the modern perception of biblical numbers always suspect?  Why not suspect the non-biblical numbers?

Let me reword that. The literal interpretation made by the few is suspect.

We judge all written records on verifiable evidence. If there is no verifiable evidence, and if the written record contradicts what is known about the real world, and if the written record does not claim any supernatural means, then the we can safely assume that we do not have sufficient information to interpret the written record. We have verifiable evidence of the numbers of people that lived in ancient Palestine, and we have mountains of evidence telling us how long a human can live. This data did not come from satan as a way to make us reject the bible.

The scriptures are not science or history text books, they are revelations from God intended to teach gospel principles. You keep using the term ‘suspect’ as if I am claiming the bible or the D&C are wrong. Please see my example of Isaiah. We need to understand them in their cultural context and in terms of the manner of prophesying. When someone says they saw a dozen youth we do not automatically assume that they meant exactly 12; and assuming that they did not think there were 12 does not mean we feel their comments are suspect. It simply means that we speak their same language and we accept the term ‘dozen’ to be a relative term of relatively large group of people but not so much that they are a crowd. In 6,000 years this expression may have only a literal application leading to confusion when read from a book written in 2013.

[Thinking]

I don't think I'm hijacking this thread with this article. The girl refused to run in a state qualifying race because her assigned number was 666.