Re: [asa] New Evidence for Two Human Origins

From: <>
Date: Sat Oct 13 2007 - 09:39:31 EDT

In base seven shouldn't Moses have originally enumerated "13" commandments?? Obviously what we have now is the decimal 10 applying to the actual countable ten.? So did later scribes just ignore the base 7 rendering (if base 7 was the case) and, unlike the non-verifiable large quantities from elsewhere, just count it for themselves and discard previously used number systems??? You would think the checkable items like this ought to make a good base-line for any scribe at any later time who wonders what number system is employed by earlier scribes.? Of course base 60 wouldn't be checkable this way.


In our own language we have special words for "dozen" and "gross", which make no reference to the base-10 system.? We also have words for "eleven" and "twelve" and "score" that may have reference to the base-10 system in an older language, but we don't commonly remember the etymology so it is just a name and to our minds has no reference to the base system.? It's likely the Hebrews had special words for some of the smaller numbers greater than 7, especially 10 since they were coming from Egypt which had a base-10 system.? Also, the numbers in the Bible have (in all likelihood) been edited by later scribes who sought to reconcile the usage of numerals that they no longer understood.? There is ample evidence for this.

Also, no civilization to my knowledge has ever used one system exclusively.? Our system of telling time goes directly back to the Mesopotamians with the use of 60 in the seconds and minutes and 12 and 24 in the hours.? (Although that is now represented in a base-10 system.)?

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 13 09:40:43 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 13 2007 - 09:40:43 EDT