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.
My niece died of cervical cancer a month ago, 10 days short of her 33 birthday. My mother celebrated her 98th birthday on May 18th.
How do you define, "super old"? What makes you believe skeletons would remain intact? Chances are most of the pre-flood bones are long buried. If found, randomly.
Just the opposite is true. Ancient skeletons are almost always fairly young which indicates a short life span.
Again -- how would it be determined at exactly what age "ancient" bone is?
I heard the canopy theory, too, many years ago. Sounds plausible.
To me the most interesting thing about the Noahic period is the very reason for the flood. And that was the genetic contamination of mankind.
The last thing I’d want to do is live to 900. My gosh that would be awful medically alone not to mention financially.
But hey, you would be able to work until you were 740 years old. Think of what that would do for the economy.
Of course, if you were waiting for someone to retire so you could take their job, that is a bit of a kick in the privates.
I highlighted the relevant portion you are overlooking in your argument - acceptance of authorization based purely on faith. Other than belief that God authorized it, that God, in fact, actually exists - how can you claim that it is factual?
At the end of the day, all religion is based on faith - that which cannot be proven. We all have not much more than a book we believe to be true, a personal decision to believe in something which cannot be proven empirically, and a willingness to make that commitment to a belief structure we accept as true - independent of outside empirical evidence.
In fact, there is more empirical evidence that Jesus existed than there is to prove the existence of Abraham! Meaning, without faith, belief in Abraham but not Jesus is actually illogical and fallacious. Yet - that belief still is valid because it is, in fact, faith.
At its basest, all religions are inherently equal in that they are all based simply on faith - belief of things which cannot be proven true OR false. Yet all religions are not equal! We can look a the morality of each religion and how it generally treats believers and unbelievers alike (belief/unbelief - a confirmation of faith-based positions right there) and decide if it's a "good" or "bad" religion at face value.
They all start at the same point - faith, belief in that which cannot be proven - but end up at pretty radically different locations. From the Judaic/Christian morality of betterment of those around you (believers and non-believers alike) in exaltation and adoration of God, to the "live and let live" approach of Buddhism/Taoism, to the "doesn't matter, it's all preordained" fatalism of Hinduism to the bloodthirsty "dominate and kill all who are different" of Islam. All have the same starting position - faith - but all end up in radically different positions and we can judge the relative "objective" merits of each religion based upon that final position (personally, I would rank them as I have here, from best to worst).
Aside: this is one reason I believe conservatism and religion fundamentally go hand-in-hand. For religion accepts that in the end not all people will be equal! That is a conclusion that is usually anathema to a liberal mindset. Conservatism believe in equality of opportunity, liberalism demands equality of results. Religion, because of its inherent "exclusive" nature of believers vs. nonbelievers, is closer to the conservative result than the liberal result. Which is why overwhelmingly those of strong faith tend to be conservative and not liberal - it lies at the very core of their belief structure.
I have my faith path, you have yours. But you cannot prove mine is "wrong" any more than I can prove mine is right! Because faith paths are inherently faith-based. There is zero ability to prove, empirically and beyond doubt, that we are on the right path. We may benefit from the path we're on, physically or emotionally or spiritually. We may suffer! But that path is still based simply on faith.
I'm a protestant by choice, 12 years Catholic education, and married to a Buddhist/agnostic... :) Add in a best friend for 25 years who's very active in his local synagogue and I've got a smattering of a lot religious backgrounds. It's enough that I realize that pretty much all religions and religious texts make pretty much the same claims about authenticity and "being true". But it always requires that "once you accept" step which right there makes it a choice driven not by logic or facts but a purely emotional, spiritual "leap of faith".
A throw-away statement? G-d says something happened and then saying that this doesn't mean it did is a "throw-away statement?" You people have a strange way of thinking.
You left the Church because you weren't well taught. Now, you think you can speak for all Catholics from your limited experience.
I left the Church because it doesn't consider G-d to be truthful. All its bibles are printed with blasphemous higher-critical commentary, and all its publications (Catholic Digest, US Catholic, Liguorian, OSV and its satellites, etc.) attack the immemorial tradition that Moses transcribed the Torah at G-d's dictation as well as the facticity of Daniel, Esther, Jonah, and other books. The Catholic Church is saturated not only with evolutionism but with liberal Protestant higher criticism (which it actually thinks will guard it from the heresy of sola scriptura by making the Bible full of mistakes and falsehoods). It has done more to promote higher criticism and "theistic" evolution than any other religious body on earth for almost a hundred years.
There is no room for anyone who has the slightest reverence for G-d in such a blasphemous, irreverent body. It smells of brimstone, as do any who reject the idea that G-d is neither ignorant, mistaken, or (chas vechalilah!) a liar. The Catholic Church is in the process of being destroyed because it turned against the Bible at least a century (maybe more) ago. You think the chaos in the Church about dogma is quite independent of the modernist skepticism towards the Bible, but you couldn't be more wrong. But never you mind. Just go right on pretending that it all didn't start with evolution (and maybe even Galileo) and keep dreaming of a restored Middle Ages but with evolution. Your days, and the days of all who insist G-d is fallible, are numbered.
It's nothing more than sowing seeds of discord.
Could you imagine being 650 years old and STILL have your 590 year old son living in your basement, waiting for a job?
Don’t forget the women. Sarah had a child at 90.
You obviously didn't click on the link I provided.
“The sun went around the earth faster back then”
My theory too.
Might be nice to add that God told us He would limit our lifespans after the fall of Adam and Eve.....
“If you don’t get a job in the next twenty years, you are going to have to find another basement to live in!”
The "inerrancy of the Bible" is not only based on faith but on the authority of eyewitness accounts, fulfilled prophecies, and historical fact.
With respect to Noah, these are the words of Jesus Christ:
"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be ~ Matthew 24:37 (KJV)
He also mentioned Abel, another pre-Flood historical person:
"From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." ~ Luke 11:50,51 (KJV)
The Hindu vedas? You mean their "Good Book" of writings which teach multiple deities? Who are their eyewitnesses to their teachings? Can Hinduism back up any of its prophecies? From what authority do they speak?
Your argument that neither the historical account of Judeo-Christian Bible or Hindu Vedas can be validated or discredited depends on which "truth" and eternity you seek.
I work in nursing in an environment that tends to be richer in oxygen due to constantly working oxygen tubes and vents as well as the tendency for unused o2 valves to be left on. I’ve had a theory for a while that the reason so many nurses in their 50’s look as young as they do is due to the increased oxygen in the environment.....it’s a pet theory and given that folks often say that I don’t look my age, I’ll just stick with that story!
It's based on the Revelation at Sinai. No eyewitness is necessary to believe G-d always speaks Truth, "historical facts" are often denied, and whether or not a prophecy has been "fulfilled" is often a matter of personal opinion, prejudice, or logical fallacies such as affirmation of the consequent.
Sinai proves everything.
In what way was any phase of man "limited"?
I did - and there isn’t any empirical proof in there. Is there anything in there you would use in a court of law to prove your case? I didn’t see anything...
Did God tell us when, why, and how life spans would be drastically reduced? What? NO??
Maybe He will 'splain Himself to you eventually. For now you just have to either accept God's Plan, or kvetch on why He didn't first deliver that Plan and check in with Mr. Trebb.
Moses received the finger written tablets first but Moses broke them in wrath. Later on Moses went up again to see God(at some months later, the chronology was unclear)and God made Moses write everything down...{(the reason why Moses had to do the work the second time was never made directly clear but given the record of Moses’ temper....God may have wanted to privately discipline Moses.(especially at the second water from the rock incident where Moses in anger struck the rock)(which did produce water) when God wanted Moses to speak to the rock...thus leading to God’s pronouncement that Moses would not be allowed to enter the promised land)}
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.