Posted on 06/10/2016 7:06:28 AM PDT by Salvation
I sometimes get questions about the remarkably long lives of the patriarchs who lived before the great flood. Consider some of their reported ages when they died:
How should we understand these references? There are many theories that have tried to explain the claimed longevity. Some propose a mathematical corrective, but this leads to other inconsistencies such as certain patriarchs apparently begetting children while still children themselves. Another theory is that the ages of the patriarchs are actually just indications of their influence or family line, but then things don’t add up chronologically when considering eras and family trees.
Personally, I think we need to take the stated ages of the patriarchs at face value and just accept it as a mystery: for some reason the ancient patriarchs lived far longer we do today. I cannot prove that the patriarchs actually lived that long, but neither is there strong evidence that they did not. Frankly, I have little stake in insisting that they did in fact live that long. I think it is best just to accept that they did.
Many scoff when I articulate this solution. They almost seem to be offended. The reply usually sounds something like this: “That’s crazy. There’s no way they lived that long. The texts must be wrong.” To which I generally reply, “Why do you think it’s crazy or impossible?” The answers usually range from the glib to the more serious, but here are some common ones:
So I think we’re back to where we started: just accepting the long life spans of the early patriarchs at face value.
There is perhaps a theological truth hidden in the shrinking lifespans over the course of time in the Old Testament. Scripture links sin and death. The day they ate of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve were warned that they would die (Gen 2:17). Yet they did not drop dead immediately. And although they died spiritually in an instant, the clock of death for their bodies wound down much later. As can be seen in the list of lifespans of the patriarchs (see above), as sin increased, lifespans dropped precipitously, especially after the flood.
Prior to the flood, lifespans remained in the vicinity of 900 years. Immediately afterward, they dropped by about a third (Noah and Shem only lived to be 600), and from there the numbers plummeted even further. Neither Abraham nor Moses even reached the age of 200, and by the time of King David, he would write, Our years are seventy, or eighty for those who are strong (Ps 90:10).
Scripture says, For the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). Indeed they are, especially in terms of lifespan. Perhaps that’s why I’m not too anxious to try to disprove the long lifespans of the patriarchs. What we know theologically is borne out in our human experience: sin is life-destroying. And this truth is surely writ large in the declining lifespan of the human family.
Does this prove that Adam actually lived to be more than 900 years old? No. It only shows that declining lifespans are something we fittingly discover in a world of sin. Since God teaches that sin brings death, why should we be shocked that our lifespan has decreased from 900 to 85 years? It is what it is. It’s a sad truth that God warned us about. Thanks be to God our Father, who in Jesus now offers us eternal life if we will have faith and obey His Son!
How or even whether the patriarchs lived to be more than 900 years old is not clear. But what is theologically clear is that we don’t live that long today because of the collective effect of sin upon us.
G-d's assertion that something happened isn't good enough for Catholics.
You left the Church because you weren't well taught. Now, you think you can speak for all Catholics from your limited experience. It's nothing more than sowing seeds of discord.
The Old Testament was written during the exile away from Israel.
Funny thread...space age man trying to justify bronze age man’s limited thinking.
You’re on to something there. The Son is a “stumbling stone” for unbelievers, but that is God’s doing, since it was HE who “laid a stone in Zion”. The petulant Western mind is unbelief towards God and that WILL NEVER WORK. He opposes the proud (we’re all proud, but I’m talking about a mindset).
Scripture is not scientific as if we can figure God out. Contradictions are a facet of the stumbling stone, IMO. Faith clears up a lot, because trust in the goodness and steadfast love of God settles us in being unsettled.
I have always been of the opinion that the diminishing lifespans were related to both the flood and the degenerative effects of sin. In fact, those effects of sin would probably also be the reason that initially brothers and sisters would have had to marry each other, and yet later incest was forbidden.
We are still discovering, as additional texts are found and deciphered, the extent of the astronomical knowledge and sophistication of the Maya, whose civilization rose in the 700 B.C. time frame and flourished in various forms until the 1500s.
“Contradictions are a facet of the stumbling stone, IMO.”
I don’t think there are any contradictions in the Bible, only contradictions produced by man’s faulty interpretation of the Bible.
Those patriarchs who followed God’s pre-Flood prescription for vegetarianism (which He rescinded in Gen. 9:3) were enabling themselves to live long lives, by avoiding toxic buildup of metals in their bodies from meat-eating. When God determined to shorten human lifespans, He used a nearby supernova to bathe the earth is cosmic rays, thus forever shortening our lifespans to the current maximum of 120 years, per Genesis 6:3.
I agree. They are “apparent” contradictions, as seen by the unbelieving. I don’t see them as contradictions in that sense. My point is that unbelievers stumble over them, and the only answer to them is faith in Christ.
Nice. I actually have that one on my bookshelf. I met the guy who runs the Glen Rose Creation Evidence Museum who really has dug into that research.
The Earth’s rotation and orbital speed were slowed by near misses with other planetary bodies, making the years longer and the lives shorter? (Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky, 1950)
Actually, yes. The wages of sin are death, but that doesn’t mean an easy death. The son of Abraham (175), Isaac (185), became blind at some point, and was tricked into giving his blessing to Jacob (147), instead of Esau (murdered shortly after Jacob died). His murderer was Hushim, the son of Dan, son of Jacob, who was hard of hearing.
So blindness (and being crippled from angel wrestling) followed by bad hearing in just three generations.
Do I believe that he did so as stated in the bible? not really. I believe some sort of mathematical error occurred somewhere and most of those ages are off by a a factor of 10.
So 900 = 90.
Or we are talking about a family name that was passed down from generation to generation for 900 years to the eldest son, or something of that nature.
The harder you try to live without God, the shorter your life?
He's actually correct. What proof do we have, other than The Bible, that Noah existed? And other than belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, how does that book prove that Noah existed any more than the Hindu vedas prove the existence of the invulnerable king Ravana?
Belief and faith do not require proof, and much of what we believe simply cannot be proven (which, inherently means, having evidence that cannot be disputed and would change the mind of a skeptic). It just is.
Sounds like the seminarian was being brutally honest, which is really a very important step towards full faith and belief, IMHO. It's a willingness to put trust in that which cannot be proven, that which cannot be shown to be 100% real. It is the admitting of real faith - faith that does not need concrete, irrefutable facts for its existence.
If that explanation were true we would be finding the skeletons of pre flood humans that are super old.
That is not the case. Just the opposite is true. Ancient skeletons are almost always fairly young which indicates a short life span.
Hmmm... I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but I could see how that interpretation could be derived from the passage.
Great stuff. That Glen Rose Creation Evidence Museum is one museum I'd love to visit. Give that brother who runs it a high five for me.
Blows peoples minds how human footprints could be co-mingled with dinosaurs. They think it's a scam. A mental block won't allow them to comprehend beyond what we've all been taught of "Scientific Dating," fossil "Ages," and "millions of years ago."
Being a chrstian (I assume), naturally you don't understand my point.
It isn't about "faith" at all. We KNOW the Torah is from G-d because of the revelation at Sinai, which is self-verifying--no "faith" involved. Once it is established that the Torah is from Heaven, we can then accept all its assertions as true and accurate on any subject whatsoever.
You are assuming that one accepts the Bible "on faith" or on its own authority. This would indeed be a logical fallacy, as all books that claim divine inspiration would then be equally acceptable. Once we accept G-d's external authorization of the Torah, we then on His authority know that all its assertions about historical events not only constitute "proof," but surety, that they actually happened.
Of course, if you're a Catholic it's all a big Aesop's fable anyway. Priests even pray at mass for G-d to accept their "sacrifice" as He accepted those of Abel and Malki-Tzedeq--whom they don't even believe existed. This is called a tefillat-shav' and is actually a great sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.