What's the largest number mentioned in the Bible?

[The Bellman]

If you know anything about the Greek language, you also know that it's very specific in meaning. When the Hebrew version of the Bible was translated into Greek. For a determination in numbers to be made like this means that history was known of what was meant and was being corrected because now there was a word for the number of 1 million or million or millions. A word that the Hebrew language did not have at that time. http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Greek_numbers.html

I don't get this. Who cares what the Greek says? Genesis was written in Hebrew. What some translators into the Greek did sometime later is completely irrelevant. What IS relevant is what the Hebrew words meant. And as far as that goes, Strong's says of the word used which is translated "millions":

from 7231; abundance (in number), i.e. (specifically) a myriad (whether definite or indefinite):--many, million, X multiply, ten thousand.
see HEBREW for 07231

Entry 7231 is:
a primitive root; properly, to cast together (compare 7241), i.e. increase, especially in number; also (as denominative from 7233) to multiply by the myriad:--increase, be many(-ifold), be more, multiply, ten thousands.

Obviously, it didn't mean "million" - it just meant "a very large number".

Sorry, ikester...you lose this one.

And that's completely apart from the fact that this entire thread is just silly, since nobody ever suggested that the Hebrews couldn't count.

 

[gluadys]

If you know anything about the Greek language, you also know that it's very specific in meaning. When the Hebrew version of the Bible was translated into Greek. For a determination in numbers to be made like this means that history was known of what was meant and was being corrected because now there was a word for the number of 1 million or million or millions. A word that the Hebrew language did not have at that time. http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Greek_numbers.html

But the Septuagint says "chiliados myriadwn" which means exactly the same as the Hebrew "thousands of ten thousands".

http://septuagint.org/LXX/Genesis/Genesis24.html

The Hebrew word used in Genesis is translated "ten thousands" by the KJV translators 13 times and "millions" only this once.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07233&version=kjv

Sounds to me that you are basing your case on an unsubstantiated oral tradition of "what was meant" that bypassed the translators of the Septuagint but somehow made its way to the translators of the KJV.

 

[ikester7579]

I don't get this. Who cares what the Greek says? Genesis was written in Hebrew. What some translators into the Greek did sometime later is completely irrelevant. What IS relevant is what the Hebrew words meant. And as far as that goes, Strong's says of the word used which is translated "millions":

Can Hebrew be translated to english? I think not.

from 7231; abundance (in number), i.e. (specifically) a myriad (whether definite or indefinite):--many, million, X multiply, ten thousand.
see HEBREW for 07231

Entry 7231 is:
a primitive root; properly, to cast together (compare 7241), i.e. increase, especially in number; also (as denominative from 7233) to multiply by the myriad:--increase, be many(-ifold), be more, multiply, ten thousands.

Obviously, it didn't mean "million" - it just meant "a very large number".

Sorry, ikester...you lose this one.

LOL, it's not a game of win or lose. It's about the meaning of God's word. But you making that comment says plenty on what you think and how you approach each subject.

And that's completely apart from the fact that this entire thread is just silly, since nobody ever suggested that the Hebrews couldn't count.

Let's see. The reason God said 6 days was because it was not understood that it took much longer? Like 4 billion years. I have had this said to me several times. So not understanding is not being able to count that high. Or is there another reason this was said?

 

[lucaspa]

And the first mention of the number million is in Genesis 24:60, And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of MILLIONs, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.
Notice that another number is added. What is a thousand times a million? 1 Billion?

Ikester, that isn't the correct translation of the verse. The verse reads" And they blessed REbekah, and said to her ""Our sister, be the mother of thousand of thousands, aand may your descendents possess the gate of those who hate them"

It is just as the site I referenced said. The Hebrews used "thousands of thousands" to mean very many, but not a specific number. Now, I don't know where you got a translation that said "millions" but I am using the RSV.

 

[ikester7579]

But the Septuagint says "chiliados myriadwn" which means exactly the same as the Hebrew "thousands of ten thousands".

http://septuagint.org/LXX/Genesis/Genesis24.html

The Hebrew word used in Genesis is translated "ten thousands" by the KJV translators 13 times and "millions" only this once.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07233&version=kjv

Sounds to me that you are basing your case on an unsubstantiated oral tradition of "what was meant" that bypassed the translators of the Septuagint but somehow made its way to the translators of the KJV.

Since the dead sea scrolls are the earliest known writting, and most cannot be read, Are you sure that what you claim is valid?
And as far as oral tradition goes. It was important to memorize certain facts about history and linage of a person's family. To forget it would be like losing all your identification and no one believes you that has never seen you before. This is why it is written in God's word about who begat who. It was that important. To us, the part we usually skip while reading the Bible. And that show's the difference in it's importantance back then compared to today.

 

[lucaspa]

If you know anything about the Greek language, you also know that it's very specific in meaning. When the Hebrew version of the Bible was translated into Greek.

Ikester, remember the OT was written in Hebrew. So it is not the "Hebrew version", but the original language. Greek may be specific, but that doesn't mean the Hebrew words were specific. It simply means that the words the translators were the best that Greek had to offer. It doesn't mean the Greek was accurate translation of the Hebrew.

A word that the Hebrew language did not have at that time. http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Greek_numbers.html

Thank you! For admitting that the Hebrew did not have a word for millions. You just destroyed your whole argument of precision and backed the argument we have been making for why Genesis 1-3 isn't literal history. If the Hebrew language didn't have a word for millions, God could hardly have explained that He created the universe 13.4 thousand million years ago, could He? Thank you again.

 

[lucaspa]

Can Hebrew be translated to english? I think not.

Of course it can. Go to Barnes and Nobles and you will find at least 4 Hebrew-English dictionaries! Shoot, go to www.blueletterbible.com and you will find Young's literal translation of the Hebrew to English OT.

It's about the meaning of God's word.... The reason God said 6 days was because it was not understood that it took much longer? Like 4 billion years. I have had this said to me several times. So not understanding is not being able to count that high. Or is there another reason this was said?

The reason is that Hebrew didn't have the words to give the concept. And you have admitted that when you said the Hebrew doesn't have a word for even million, much less thousand million. Instead, what Hebrew has is a phrase for "too many to count" -- thousand thousand.

Even today, with budgets of a billion being common for cities, states, and, of course, the US government and China having a population of 2 billion people, we have trouble understanding what a billion is. We have concrete examples of a billion. They didn't have such an example in 500 BC. An army of 10,000 is so enormous that they don't even report it as such, but say it is a thousand times bigger! God inspired the Bible, Ikester. That means He had to go thru the limited understanding of the people at the time of inspiration. Even today, many, if not most, people can't understand a billion. It's even more impossible then. God had much more important things to tell people other than the exact way He created. He needed to tell them that He did create, and not the Babylonian pantheon. He needed to tell them that He created humans for their own sakes, and not to be slave worshippers of God. He needed to tell them about the close relationship of men and women and that eternal life can't be bought with knowledge. All of these and more He communicated in Genesis 1-3.

Yes, what you are doing is trying to justify your literal reading of Genesis 1-8. But don't you see that in trying to force it to be literal history, you are missing all the really important things God intended to tell you there?

 

[The Bellman]

Can Hebrew be translated to english? I think not.

Of course it can. Any language can be translated to any other language. It's a question of how accurate the translation can be. In this case, you're relying on the translation of the Hebrew into the English word "millions". As has been shown, that translation is NOT accurate.

Apart from anything else, suggesting that Hebrew can't be translated into English is simply ludicrous. The many, many translations of the OT into English evidence that this is false.

LOL, it's not a game of win or lose. It's about the meaning of God's word. But you making that comment says plenty on what you think and how you approach each subject.

Sorry, but when people are presenting opposing viewpoints, it is entirely a "game" of "win" or "lose". The "winner" is the one who presents the best evidence to support their case. The "loser" is the one who does not. Guess which one you are, in this discussion?

Let's see. The reason God said 6 days was because it was not understood that it took much longer? Like 4 billion years. I have had this said to me several times. So not understanding is not being able to count that high. Or is there another reason this was said?

Not understanding in this context could be a number of things. Can you grasp a period of time in the billions of years? I can't. Human minds aren't fitted to that sort of timespan. Less educated minds would be less able to intellectually grasp that sort of time period. It COULD also mean that they weren't able to count into the billions. IF that is the contention, then it is NOT the same as suggesting that the Hebrews could not count, and you haven't evidenced anywhere that they could count into the billions in any case. As has been shown, the "million" you cited is more accurately translated "a very large amount".

 

[ikester7579]

Of course it can. Go to Barnes and Nobles and you will find at least 4 Hebrew-English dictionaries! Shoot, go to www.blueletterbible.com and you will find Young's literal translation of the Hebrew to English OT.

I thought the hebrew language had no verbs. Having no verbs would make the translation to english impossible.

The reason is that Hebrew didn't have the words to give the concept. And you have admitted that when you said the Hebrew doesn't have a word for even million, much less thousand million. Instead, what Hebrew has is a phrase for "too many to count" -- thousand thousand.

Even today, with budgets of a billion being common for cities, states, and, of course, the US government and China having a population of 2 billion people, we have trouble understanding what a billion is. We have concrete examples of a billion. They didn't have such an example in 500 BC. An army of 10,000 is so enormous that they don't even report it as such, but say it is a thousand times bigger! God inspired the Bible, Ikester. That means He had to go thru the limited understanding of the people at the time of inspiration. Even today, many, if not most, people can't understand a billion. It's even more impossible then. God had much more important things to tell people other than the exact way He created. He needed to tell them that He did create, and not the Babylonian pantheon. He needed to tell them that He created humans for their own sakes, and not to be slave worshippers of God. He needed to tell them about the close relationship of men and women and that eternal life can't be bought with knowledge. All of these and more He communicated in Genesis 1-3.

Yes, what you are doing is trying to justify your literal reading of Genesis 1-8. But don't you see that in trying to force it to be literal history, you are missing all the really important things God intended to tell you there?

2ti 3:16Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

Inspiration
that extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (RSV, "Every scripture inspired of God") This is true of all the "sacred writings," not in the sense of their being works of genius or of supernatural insight, but as "theopneustic," i.e., "breathed into by God" in such a sense that the writers were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of his mind and will. The testimony of the sacred writers themselves abundantly demonstrates this truth; and if they are infallible as teachers of doctrine, then the doctrine of plenary inspiration must be accepted. There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God, none have been proved to exist. Difficulties and phenomena we cannot explain are not errors. All these books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired. We do not say that they contain, but that they are, the Word of God. The gift of inspiration rendered the writers the organs of God, for the infallible communication of his mind and will, in the very manner and words in which it was originally given.

 

[Jet Black]

I thought the hebrew language had no verbs. Having no verbs would make the translation to english impossible.

no verbs? don't you mean no vowels. A language with no verbs might be a tad tricky. how would you say you did anything?

 

[ikester7579]

no verbs? don't you mean no vowels. A language with no verbs might be a tad tricky. how would you say you did anything?

Your probably right. I know it was something that started with a v. Maybe someone knows.

ADDED: I found the answer here: http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~hr/bible/hebvow.html
Found another: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/alephbet.html#vowels

 

[Jet Black]

Your probably right. I know it was something that started with a v. Maybe someone knows.

ADDED: I found the answer here: http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~hr/bible/hebvow.html
Found another: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/alephbet.html#vowels

I thought it would be a bit difficult for anyone to write a book which starts with the words "In the Beginning God created....." without being able to even say "create". glad we cleared that up.

I wonder why they never had vowels though, that seems interesting in itself.

 

[The Bellman]

I thought the hebrew language had no verbs. Having no verbs would make the translation to english impossible.

Are you serious? What version of the bible do you read? You do realise that the OT in it was TRANSLATED from the Hebrew, don't you?

 

[Mistermystery]

LOL, it's not a game of win or lose.

Indeed it's not a game, but you did lose the argument. (awww)

 

[ikester7579]

Indeed it's not a game, but you did lose the argument. (awww)

Losing the arguement with man is not to lose much. For man will not judge me on judgement day. So you or anyone else here are the least of my worries. Awww, thought you had me worried for a minute did you?

 

[Mistermystery]

Since the dead sea scrolls are the earliest known writting, and most cannot be read, Are you sure that what you claim is valid?

While I don't know if his source is correct (it certainly seems to me though), a simple trip to google shows that the dead sea scrolls are not the earliest known writtings. Not to mention various cavepaintings and other forms of communication, but for sakes of the argument, let's say that this is the oldest known writing. While I know you want everything to tie into your religion, it doesn't mean that it is.

Between 1949 and 1956, in what became a race between the Bedouin and the archaeologists, ten additional caves were found in the hills around Qumran, caves that yielded several more scrolls, as well as thousands of fragments of scrolls: the remnants of approximately 800 manuscripts dating from approximately 200 B.C.E. to 68 C.E.

Remeber kids: Google is your friend, not your enemy.

 

[Mistermystery]

Losing the arguement with man is not to lose much. For man will not judge me on judgement day. So you or anyone else here are the least of my worries. Awww, thought you had me worried for a minute did you?

I do not judge you, but you still lose the argument.

 

[Western Deity]

Losing the arguement with man is not to lose much. For man will not judge me on judgement day. So you or anyone else here are the least of my worries. Awww, thought you had me worried for a minute did you?

Ikester, you're just so much better than every non-christian on this board you know?

 

[ikester7579]

Ikester, you're just so much better than every non-christian on this board you know?

If you say so . But there are quite a few that are smarter than me.

 

[ikester7579]

I do not judge you, but you still lose the argument.

Awww, but who will lose the the arguement when it counts. When it comes to that point, YEC, OEC, TOE etc... won't make a difference. Not even the theories of science. We will be judged exactly how God's word says we will be. No YEC, No OEC, No TOE belief will change it. And none by themselves get you into the kingdom.
But what is true is what is written in God's word. I have yet to find anyone that can prove otherwise with any solid evidence. Only mere opinions of someone else who says it's not. I can write a book and say whatever I want, and some will believe it. But it don't make it true.