Sheshbazzar

The basics are actually very simple, having to with the most basic standards, and instruments of counting and measure.
Before I proceed into the actual mathematical processes, I offer you these verse from The Torah. (For the English I'll follow the KJV wording making only such adjustments as I deem necessary)
Here I wish to take time to point out that word 'measure' in Lev 19:35. In the Hebrew it is משורה pronounced 'mesurah', It is a word that has endured a long time. And still has the same meaning in English as it held in the time the Bible was written...and before.

Moving on then
Now I'll begin discussing the fundamentals of measure. The most obvious principal, one which is recognized in every civilized society on earth, is that exacting measurements demand consistent units of measure, that is to say STANDARDS, whether it be inches or ounces every single unit must be EQUAL.
Even in these ancient societies silver and gold were precious and were weighed out to the most exacting standards possible.

As children we learn to count and add and subtract on our fingers. It is a very ancient and natural way of accounting.
Most people anywhere can count up to ten on their fingers with no problem or questions.
Not many of us would even think to say, 'well my little finger is smaller, so it must be counted as less, and my middle finger is longer so it must be counted as more', but it is "one, two, three, four, five, six...."

To the ancient peoples the number seven was 'set-apart', or as we say in English 'Holy'. The most commonly known reason for that being the seven day week.
Lesser known is 'The Builders Rule' of 'three and four' (seven) forming the two lines of a 'right angle', with five equal units the diagonal making for twelve equidistant units as the perimeter. Our thirty-sixty-ninety degree triangle.
Used to build structures that are 'foursquare', and 'upright' whose measures are equal. Not crooked and unequal shoddy constructions.

And in the Hebrew to 'seven' something also holds the meaning 'to finish', to 'completely do', or to 'swear by'.

To a people to whom seven signified a whole measure, or something 'complete', the idea of dividing seven into ten parts (fingers) came naturally.
Thus each finger (digit) could be calculated as seven tenths (.7) giving on the right hand three and one half, and on the left hand three and one half.
(Or each finger (digit) accounted as a whole seven, thirty five on the right hand and the same on the left.)

Of course when you have the pure number 'three and one half', it must be composed of seven 'halves'. With every 'half' precisely equal to every other half.

A little addition; 1+2+3+4+5=15 or 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10=55 five on this hand, and five on that hand.

So then on to a little bit of simple multiplication, and I'll point out some peculiarities. If you successively multiply the five fingers (digits) of your hand; 1x2x3x4x5=120

If you continue and multiply one through ten; 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10=3628800 Which happens to be the exact number of minutes in 360 weeks.

That is to say one complete circuit of weeks. Or seven devisions of 360 days, or 84 thirty day 'months' or 2520 days

Only the kicker here is to not visualize this as being a circle, but in the Hebrew manner of rectilinear construction and measure,

a square with four ninety degree corners. (this is why the Scriptures measure so many rectilinear objects, to train the brain to think in rectilinear and geometrical terms)
Think about it.

On a smaller scale, three and one half days is 84 hours or 5040 minutes or 302400 seconds.

Fifteen days is 360 hours (visualize or draw fifteen equal squares lined up in a row)

Six lines of 15 days is 90 days or 2160 hours (a six faced cube, 2160 degrees the sum of its 24 angles) 129600 minutes or 7776000 seconds.

Seven lines of fifteen days adds up to 105 days or 2520 hours or 15 weeks. That is 90 days or 2160 hours (a cube) of NOT 'set-apart' (holy-sabbath-rest)
plus 15 days, or 360 hours of 'set-apart' (holy-sabbath-rest) This being the exact 24th part of 2520 days.

In Acts 27:28 the depth is plumbed at 20 fathoms and then 15 fathoms the sum is 35 fathoms, 72 inches to a fathom, 2520 inches. The difference between the soundings is 5 fathoms, or 360 inches. To the plumb-line and the measuring reed. Few are that at all fathom these deep matters.
But yet we approach some unseen shore

Now with regards to those years which are determined by the sun, moon, and stars. The count of any shana ('year') can be of any length to suit what is being measured, as long as the standards remain of equal length for each of the types of year.
So one can calculate by 354 day 'years' or 'years' of 360, or 365, or 365.2422, or 367.5 or other units suitable. As you say Robert these things operate over thousands of years.
And no matter what common units are employed the demarcations will align at certain very precise points repeatedly along the way.

This is only a small part of what I am aware of, but sets the standards for three measuring reeds whose common small unit is the 'finger breadth' .7
They measure lineal measures but also measure time. Time and space. The continuum in which we all of us live.

mountainman

A dismissive appeal to authority if I have ever heard one.

The historical jesus was supposedly at one time a dead carcass.

But Lo and Behold the historical jesus has supposedly risen to serve the pulpit!

Dead carcasses are capable of resurrection according to the greatest authorities of Biblical History.

One should therefore allow discussion of an astronomical Jesus.

Zwaarddijk

Which ancient peoples? There were, you know, quite a few of them! Why would the seven day week be the reason for the holiness of seven? There's no universality about the seven day week, and in fact, just a few ancient cultures came up with a seven day week - some having anything between four and ten, there also being thirteen day weeks attested in Meso-America.


And in Swedish, you get:
seven + nk = sink
seven + k = sick
(no seriously, the point I am making is you can't just assume words that are identical share an identical origin, you would have to look at cognate languages to figure whether 'to seven' really has the same root as the number or not. It's possible it does, but it's just as possible it doesn't - it's conceivable that seven is the origin of that verb, it's also conceivable they just have been conflated due to sound changes removing distinctive features.

There is a reason numerology is generally not taken seriously.

Chili

True, and I am no expert in the field but do believe that language is mathematical or the philosopher would not have the last word. Formally, I suppose, wherein the axiom is made worthy of truth. This concept is not easy, and for example is beyond Kant (and so many others), and so: who am I to say?

Zwaarddijk

What do you mean by "language is mathematical"? It seems a rather unclear statement, (and I find it rather likely that the opposite is the case: mathematics is so flexible, that it can encompass a lot of what language is).

Sheshbazzar

Given that the subject of both this Fora, and of this thread is of the religions of the ANE, the answer to that ought to be quite obvious.

First. This post was not addressed to you. It was a reply to a request of further information from Robert Tulip.

Second. This IS the BIBLICAL Criticisim & History Forum;...'for Textual and historical discussions of ABRAHAMIC holy books'

Is there something about that discription which is too difficult for you to understand? Did you see Meso-American religions anywhere in that discription?


Now. You tell me what ABRAHAMIC religion ever observed other than a seven day week.

Do you read Hebrew Zwaarddijk ? Have you studied Hebrew? Are you familiar with the Hebrew language? אנכי ששבצר העברי and I do. And I am.
The Hebrew word for the number 'seven' is the Hebrew root word שבע and is also the word for to 'take an oath' to 'completely do' a matter.
This word occurs throughout the Hebrew texts, and in its various senses is still a common Hebrew conversational term.

If you had spent ten minutes in study you could have confirmed this for yourself.

The unpointed Hebrew texts have the word שבע and its various constructs. The contexts revealing the intended meanings.

And it is far more possible. ...No down right certain that you don't know enough about Hebrew to know what you are talking about.

I don't try to correct you on the meanings of Swedish words.
So just where the hell do you get off trying to correct my Hebrew usage?

NONE of what I have presented fits the definition of 'Numerology'. It is plain simple mathamatical calculations that a ten year child of any nationality can perform.

You really ought to look up the meaning of big words like 'numerology' in a Dictionary before you try to use them in a sentence.

Chili

Well I really was not prepared for this question. I think that mathematics and language meet at the top where truth is very real and fixed in the beyond, I suppose, that we bring to the fore with words and we employ the rigor of logic to defend because it is trancendental there, in the beyond, that itself is already within us to make wisdom known to us, even if only as a pursuit that also makes the always surpising 'aha-moment' possible that we call inspiration, or God-send, another would say.

You see the confusion in our use of language, and maybe it is true that speech is given to man to hide his innermost thoughts so he might learn them first-hand (as in by the sweat of our brow), to which Fulton Sheen said: "The whole world is torn with words and nobody can do without words, but only insofar as we can do without words do we really understand the meaning of words."

Chili

Oops, not Fulton Sheen but . . . I forgot who it was.

Zwaarddijk

All Abrahamic religions that now are extant developed out of one in which the seven-day week was established. But we do find ancient Semitic cultures that did not have seven day weeks.


Yes, I have. And unlike you, I have also studied general linguistics.


Yes, they are identical, and at the time the Hebrew was written, they were conceived of as related. However, this does not prove that they have the same origin - evidence for that would require looking at cognate languages.

We know that Biblical Hebrew ע can originate with two separate Proto-Semitic phonemes, viz. ʕ or ʁ - a distinction Arabic apparently has retained, but which was lost in both Aramaic and Hebrew. There is of course no guarantee Arabic has retained a cognate to sh-b-ʁ if that were the origin of the verb signifying 'to complete'.

Quote:

שבע

And if you knew any linguistics, you'd realize I am not contradicting this state of affairs!

If you were a bit smarter than you are, you'd realize I know this to be a fact, and am pointing out something entirely different.


Indeed. But the Hebrew unpointed texts do not tell us what the words were a few centuries before the unpointed texts were written. We know some sound changes have occured, and we know that a word with a ע in it can have it from either an earlier ʕ - the IPA transliteration for the sound represented by ע - or from a ʁ/ɣ (which does not have a symbol of its own in the Biblical Hebrew script, since it had merged with ʕ by the time the script was developed; later on, the sound written with ר may have acquired a pronunciation like ʁ in some dialects of Hebrew, however, this does not mean the former *ʁ reappeared in the same positions it had existed in back in pre-biblical Hebrew ).

Care to maintain this uninformed position?

I NEVER CORRECTED YOUR HEBREW USAGE. I CORRECTED YOUR BASELESS SPECULATION ABOUT THE HISTORY OF WORDS. Etymology is a fickle thing, and if people who lack an understanding of historical linguistics utter anything about it, it's best to ignore what they say since they're more often wrong than right.

I do not know the relevant etymologies here, but I am not willing to accept a claim until I've seen a slightly more solid case presented demonstrating the alternative option (the verb deriving from sh-b-ʁ) to be likely to be wrong.

<edited>

Learn the difference between speaking of a language as it is, and making uninformed statements about historical linguistics. You are trying to analyze the religious views of pre-Biblical people based on very fickle evidence, and it's the fickleness of this evidence I am trying to demonstrate to you.

spin

Gen 21:22-32