And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: Genesis 5:4
"The Sumerian King List records the lengths of reigns of the kings of Sumer. 
The initial section deals with kings before the Flood and is significantly different from the rest. When the kingdom durations of the antediluvian section are expressed in an early sexagesimal numerical system, all durations except two are expressed as multiples of 602. A simple tally of the ciphers used yields six 10x602 signs, six 602 signs and six 60 signs.
The lives of the Biblical patriarchs, however, have a precision of one year. If Adam and Noah are not included (as in the King List), and the lives of the patriarchs are similarly rounded to two digits, the sum of the lives has six 103 signs, six 102 signs and six 10 signs. In addition, if the number representing the sum of the ages was wrongly assumed as having been written in the sexagesimal system, the two totals become numerically equivalent.
That the two documents are numerically related is strong evidence 
for the historicity of the book of Genesis. The fact that the Sumerian account shows up as a numerically rounded, incomplete version of the Genesis description, lacking the latter’s moral and spiritual depth, is a strong argument for the accuracy, superiority, and primacy of the Biblical record.
The early chapters of the book of Genesis contain numerical information about the ages of the Biblical patriarchs and their chronological relationships during the antediluvian world. They also contain a description of the moral and spiritual condition as well as the history of that period.
The Sumerian King List, on the other hand, contains an initial section that makes reference to the Flood and to Sumerian kings of extremely long reigns before the Flood.
The antediluvian portion of the King List is very different from the Biblical account.
---It only contains eight kings, while Genesis has ten patriarchs.
---The Sumerian list assigns an average reign duration of 30,150 years, with a total duration for the period of 241,200 years, compared to an average age of the Biblical patriarchs of 858 years and a sum of 8575 years for their full lives. It also lacks the detailed information of Genesis and its moral and spiritual emphases.
Walton has pointed out that the antediluvian portion of the King List does not include the Sumerian first man nor the Flood hero.
---If Adam and Noah are dropped from the Biblical list, the number of people in the two lists is then the same—eight.
Walton has also noticed that the total of the durations of the kingdoms and the total of the ages of the patriarchs are numerically related and are equivalent if the number base of the Sumerian list is changed from sexagesimal to decimal.
This is an important result and would imply that the two records relate to the same events in the early history of mankind. If so, then finding numerically related elements of the Biblical account in the Sumerian King List would open up important avenues of research into the relationship of Biblical and Mesopotamian chronologies.
The postdiluvian sections do not appear in other Mesopotamian manuscripts that are not fragments of the King List, and their contents have only been found in the King List.
In contrast, the antediluvian section has been found as a separate entity in a tablet dated to the end of the 3rd millennium without reference to lists of other rulers.
Furthermore, the antediluvian section has a particular set of formulas different from those used in the postdiluvian section. The formulas for the change of dynasty and the mention of their totals are very consistent in the postdiluvian part and are very different from those used in the antediluvian one.
Jacobsen believes that the antediluvian section is a later addition to a King List that did not originally contain kings before the Flood.
*Jacobsen concludes that the scribe adding the antediluvian section was not copying directly from the epic but was using a different source (Document A) that was literarily related to the epic. 
There are three equally probable explanations for the relationship between the epic and Document A:
(1) Document A was based on the epic but its author introduced the particular formulas.
(2) The epic used A but dropped the formulas as they did not fit its style.
(3) Both A and the epic were derived from a third document B that contained the common phrases and the formulas.
Jacobsen concludes that ‘The man who added the antediluvian section is also responsible for the last part of the list; his literary peculiarities appear in both places.’ This scribe added the 3rd dynasty of Ur (2112–2004 BC) and the dynasty of Isin down to Sin-magir (1827–1817 BC), so the antediluvian section appears to have been also added after that time.
The antediluvian portion of the King List appears to have been 
originally composed very early in Sumerian history. Therefore, the early number system, based on rounded signs.
A Sumerian scribe looking at a document containing the Genesis total would have interpreted the signs as sexagesimal. Thus, the first 6 signs would have represented 216,000 years (6 x 10x602), and the next six, 21,600 (6 x 602) for a total of 237,600 years. This is very close to the total in the Sumerian antediluvian document. The scribe would have been puzzled at the last set of six small circle signs. That sign was generally recognized as the cipher for 10. 
But why introduce 60 years (6 x 10) when already the first two sets of signs amount to more than two hundred thousand years? Also, it would have appeared very strange that no intermediate ciphers between 602 and 10 were used in the total. The scribe would have expected to see the next smaller cipher of the system, namely the large bullet with the small circle inside (10x60). It would have seemed very reasonable to assume that the signs were wrong and that the large bullet had been dropped. Given that assumption, the last three signs would have represented 3,600 (6 x 10x60) for a grand total of 241,200 years, the total appearing in the Sumerian list.
Our hypothesis for explaining the similarities in numerical structure and magnitude of the two totals is as follows:
The Sumerian scribe that composed the original Antediluvian list had at his disposal a document (possibly a clay tablet) containing numerical information on the ages of eight of the patriarchs similar to that of the Genesis record. The numbers denoting the lifespans of the individual patriarchs were missing or obliterated. However, the document had a rounded total of the lifetimes of the patriarchs (possibly on the back of the tablet).
Although this number was written using a decimal number base, the scribe assumed it was sexagesimal and incorporated it into his document after making some slight emendations. He then proceeded to assign approximate reign durations to the perceived antediluvian kings in an arbitrary manner but keeping the sum equal to the total he had copied from the decimal (Semitic) tablet. He only used two high order ciphers to represent the durations (in units of 3,600 years) but used a third smaller cipher in the last two reigns to conform to the structure of the total he had adopted.
The probability that the resemblance is fortuitous is very small in view of the fact that the two lists:
- mention the Flood;
refer to the same (adjusted) number of personages;
have totals that are made up of the same number of symbols for ten times the square of the base, the square of the base, and the next lower symbol of the two different numerical systems involved;
and, have their totals correspond to each other numerically.
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the Biblical account was derived from the Sumerian because:
the Genesis account has more numerical precision and more detailed information;
the ages of the patriarchs are much more reasonable than the extremely long reigns of the kings of the Kings List, the account is much more realistic and true to life;
and, the moral and spiritual qualities are immensely superior. For example, in the Sumerian account of the Flood (as given in the Gilgamesh epic) there is no reason given for the decision of the gods to destroy mankind. There are no allusions at all to a fault committed by man. The Flood appears as a capricious act of the gods rather than a divine punishment. In Genesis, however, God purposes to purge mankind because the thoughts and designs of men were continually evil, and the Earth was full of violence.
Another possible explanation is that, instead of a written document, the Sumerians had an oral tradition referring to the 
antediluvian account which was used in composing the early part of the Kings List, but that they had available only the general setting of the story, the number of personages involved (interpreted as kings), the rough magnitude of their ages (interpreted as durations of reigns), and the rounded total; originally in a decimal numerical system, but incorrectly assumed to be in a sexagesimal one at a later date.
The main problem with this explanation is that there is a detailed numerical correspondence between the two lists that would have been difficult to remember from one generation to the other. On the other hand, the total of the lifetimes (which provides the principal numerical correspondence) has a structure (three sets of six ciphers each in strict decreasing arithmetical order) that would have made remembering that number much easier.
The Sumerian King List records in a chronological succession the names of most of the kings of Sumer and the lengths of their reigns. The composition is based on the theory that there was always only one king at a time for all of Babylonia, and a single capital. A few of the existing manuscripts of the List have an initial section dealing with kings before the Flood that is significantly different from the rest of the list.
This antediluvian section was a later addition written by a person different from the one who composed the postdiluvian section of the list. This scribe appears to have adapted an earlier list of antediluvian kings to conform to the style and philosophy of the document he was bringing up to date.
However, it is evident that his source for the antediluvian kings did not claim that the different kingships were successive.
---The original King List was probably composed during the reign of Utu-hegal of Uruk (2119–2112 BC) and the antediluvian section added after the reign of Sin-magir (1827–1817 BC) of the Isin dynasty."
