> Did you study all of this formally or self taught?

Both.

> Either way you are very informative.

Well, thank you. It's been a pleasure conversing with you.

> Have you heard the theory that the 30 (or is it 33?) years that Jesus' life is "unrecorded" in the Bible relate to Buddha? Apparently "the Buddha" time period is supposed to align with the 30 missing biblical years and there are similarities, like walking on water (and a few others I can't think of at the moment). A friend of mine from another church (not the one with the sermon against science) was telling me about this theory.

Hmm, I've never heard this. Jesus is thought to have lived for 33 years. Luke tells us in Lk. 3.23 that Jesus was 30 when he began his ministry, and scholars who study his life have figured out that he was crucified on his 3rd Passover in ministry, hence 3 years of ministry. It has to do with Jewish culture, though (as opposed to anything Buddha related). Jewish custom required men to turn 30 before they would ever be recognized publicly as an authorized teacher. Thirty was also the age when Levites began their service (Num. 4.47, though we have to wonder if this has anything to do with Jesus. It's just an interesting tidbit). But we also notice that Luke says "Jesus himself was *about* thirty," not committing himself definitely to precisely 30 years old as the age of Jesus when he started preaching.

Luke (2.42) also gives us a story of Jesus when he was 12 years old. So there aren't 30 missing years, but only about 18.

But I'll admit to never having heard a theory about Jesus's 33 years relating to "the Buddha" time period.

Did you study all of this formally or self taught? Either way you are very informative. Have you heard the theory that the 30 (or is it 33?) years that Jesus' life is "unrecorded" in the Bible relate to Buddha? Apparently "the Buddha" time period is supposed to align with the 30 missing biblical years and there are similarities, like walking on water (and a few others I can't think of at the moment). A friend of mine from another church (not the one with the sermon against science) was telling me about this theory.

I am converting sexagesimal to decimal. The original Sumerian cuneiform was a sexagesimal system, not decimal.

If I'm thinking it through correctly, 1 sar = 36,000 in sexagesimal, and 1 ner = 3600. Thus 6 sar plus 7 ner = 216,000 + 25,200 = 241,200. Converting to decimal, then, King Alumim has a lifespan of 800 years (in decimal), Alalgar 1000, and so on.

Okay, I misunderstood what you were trying to do.

You aren't converting the Sumerian sexagesimal to decimal. You are assuming that the original Sumerian cuneiform was incorrectly assumed to be in sexagesimal, but was actually decimal.

So when a king is listed as reigning for 5 sars and 1 ner, instead of taking that as 5 * 602 + 1 * 60 = 18,600, you instead assume that a sar is 100 years, and a ner is 10 years, so you get 5 * 100 + 1 * 10 = 510. Sure that minimizes the conflict (giving the prediluvian ages a range of 510 to 1200), but you can't claim these ages support the ages in Genesis without explaining that you have to assume mistranslation or improper recording of the cuneiform to reach that conclusion.

Right. Sumer was in the southern part of what we call Iraq. it was more like a dynasty record rather than a genealogy per se, though dynasties were also usually genealogical. (You can read an article on Wikipedia if you're interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List). While scholars speculate whether or not the ages listed are mythological, it's of interest to me that they are generally the same spans as recorded in Genesis.

The Bible's interest in its own list is genealogical, though no genealogy in the ancient world included every generation as ours now do. Their reason for recording a genealogy were often to legitimate a king or priest. They were not primarily intended to be historical records, but in more of a political role. They are designed to give people an understanding of their identity. Such is the list in Genesis 5. The point there is to show the horror of death that sin brought upon the generations, but also to show a continuation of God's blessing despite sin.

> There is also the theory that Jesus and certain people mentioned in the Bible appear in the texts of other religions but by different names for cultural reasons.

The ancient people seem to have had multiple names, which sometimes makes it difficult for us to identify various personages. Those names were often completely different from each other. For instance, no record has ever been found of "Moses," but what we don't know is what other names he may have gone by. Eanatum of Mesopotamia was also known as Lumma. Go figure. This kind of stuff was common. Some kings had 4-5 different names, all completely different. Different from our culture, for sure.

> here is also the theory that Jesus and certain people mentioned in the Bible appear in the texts of other religions but by different names for cultural reasons.

Jesus certainly appears in other religions. Islam calls him "Isa." Hindus call hi "Ishu." Ahmadiyya Muslims call him "Yus Asaf".

Other people from the Bible appear in Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek, Persian, and Roman records, among others.

As for the Sumerian King...Geographically his kingdom would be in the general area of biblical text, perhaps he found this long lifespan notable. Was this record part of a census or was he specifically focused on the ages? There is also the theory that Jesus and certain people mentioned in the Bible appear in the texts of other religions but by different names for cultural reasons.

You can't seriously have expected me to post here in Sumerian. My interest is more in communication. So I converted the translated Sumerian glyphs to their parallel in decimal. Do we really have a problem that I communicated in English and in the decimal equivalents of Sumerian? The point is easily the same. By transforming the Sumerian glyphs to the Arabic decimal equivalents, and by using a neutral notation system, we can determine that the lifespans of the ancient Sumerian kings are of the same length as the lifespans claimed by the biblical account.

The numbers you have are already in decimal form.

Sumerian Sexagesimal counting is expressed with reed impressions that look something like arrows pointing in differing directions and grouped. So you don't need to convert 28,800 or 36,000 to decimal, because they already are in decimal. If you think that was calculated incorrectly you should go directly from the original values which will not be in Arabic numerals.

In contrast to your 5 possibilities, the Sumerians used a sexagesimal number system (a combination of base 6 and base 10). When the numbers of the Sumerian kids are converted to decimal, they correspond to the age spans listed in Genesis:

Genesis 5:
Seth 912
Enosh 905
Kenan 910
Mehalalel 895
Jared 962
Enoch 365 – and taken away
Methuselah 969
Lamech 777

Sumerian King List:
Alulum 28,800
Alalgar 36,000
Enmenluanna 43,200
Enmengalanna 28,800
Dumuzi 36,000
Ensipazianna 28,800
Enmenduranna 21,000
Uburtutu 18,600

If we add up the years of the 8 men given in scripture, they total 6695, or 6700 for simplicity. If we add up the years of the 8 men in the Sumerian list, they add up to 241,200.

To compare, use a neutral notation system:

* = 1000
0 = 100

In Scripture: 6700 = ******0000000

In Sumer:

* = 36,000
0 = 3600
6* + 7(0) = 216,000 +25,200 = 241,200

The differences between the lists are neutralized; the totals are the same.

Genesis 5:
Seth 912
Enosh 905
Kenan 910
Mehalalel 895
Jared 962
Enoch 365
Methuselah 969
Lamech 777

In Sumer:
Alulim 800
Alalgar 1000
Enmenluanna 1200
Enmengalanna 800
Dumuzi 1000
Ensipazianna 800
Enmenduranna 600
Uburtutu 500

The lengths of lifespan are in the 500-1000 range in both cases.

> As far as the 900+ years of those people, archaeologists have discovered a Sumerian king lists where the ages are, surprisingly and interestingly, the same kinds of lengths. It's interesting because it is a source completely outside of the Bible, it's from a time sometime before 2600 BC (the real date of it is not able to be exactly determined), and it's from a culture that is not the Israelite culture. But it confirms the same ages of a life.

They're similar in that they both seem to be very long. However the Sumerian kings lists sometimes have ages in the 10,000-40,000 year range, which is about 40 times the oldest age in Genesis.

There are various points worth considering:

1. The ages may have numerological/symbolic meaning that we don't currently recognize (there are various ways of breaking the numbers both of the Sumerian King list, and Genesis into factors that they likely regarded as meaningful/communicative)
2. We may be mis-translating the numbers. Numeric conventions were not nearly as uniform in the ancient world, and often relied on context to determine how to interpret a number (kind of like how if I say 96 you might interpret it 1996, or if I said 09 you might interpret it 2009).
3. Some of the numbers my be describing family lines rather than individuals.
4. There may be other points being communicated by having large numbers as well.
5. The ages of the antediluvian genealogies in Genesis have a strange pattern in the final digit, nearly always ending in 0,2,5, or 7. In the Septuagint there's only one exception (Methuselah's age ends in a 9), while in the Masoretic there are a few more. This is suggestive of either constructed ages (as in the numerological answer), or a particularity in time keeping/writing (as in the mis-translation answer).