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.
No worries.
It’s not my interpretation, it’s orthodox.
This genetic contamination was also a reason God told his men to kill every woman, man, and child. Even to killing the horses and dogs. As the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, Canaan had over 400 years to plant giants in God's promised land for the freed Jews to have to overcome. David picked up 5 rocks when he killed Goliath because Goliath had 4 brothers. All would have to die in the end.( 2 Sam 21:22)
Some have speculated that these Chimera's are still around today with DNA markers making them unsavable for heaven. We are told to not take marks in Lev 19, and could it possibly be that Satan marked his and God marks His with the Holy Spirit with clean DNA. Possibly these markers would breed out over 7 generations( sins of the father) but then the marker appears again down the line that generate ungodly people. IMO, in the last days, the Antichrist will require you to mark yourself with his name to mark you as his. Satan is a counterfeiter and hates God's mark on His people. Just theory of course, but we know that genetics is important to the "seed" prophesy.
You left the Church because you don't know the Church. Simple. Honest.
Your days, and the days of all who insist G-d is fallible, are numbered.
You haven't described the Church or me.
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
-- Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Good day.
Did I say Jesus was unnecessary? We took upon our selves the moral sin of pride and hubris...that we can be our own God! God made for Adam and Eve animal skins for clothing instead of leaves signifying that it would always be the death of the innocent that was necessary for the covering of our spiritual nakedness! Jesus was the only one that could break that cycle and restore those who were willing to the Father!
What part of that is false teaching again? Had Adam and Eve stayed the course, everything in Genesis 3-12 need not have happened and the power of Satan and the fallen ones would have been broken and bound by the Father, possibly through the use of our interesting race of fleshly matter in breathed by the Holy Spirit! Alas ‘twas not to be!
Well said.
(Disclaimer - I believe Christ’s birth resulted from a genetic algorithm The Almighty “timed” at the point when He took “the curve” from The Man (Adam), created Eve, and then joined his “curve” with her “curve”)
I also hope this puts to rest the "Replacement theology" That somehow the church replaced Israel as the object of God's covenant with Abraham. Replacement Theology got us the Holocaust and is with us today as people abandon Israel for the Arabs. Gen 12:3 is forever true and will not be replaced. Even in Revelation, we see that the final battle will be over Israel, as the church will already be at the Marriage Supper in chpt 4-5. Israel has a covenant that cannot be broken as God changeth not, but the Lamb brought us another better covenant. The church was a mystery not revealed until the Crucifixion of Christ. The Jews still have theirs and every jot and title will come to pass for them also. The Bible tells us that ALL nations will align against Israel and ALL means America also. The church will be gone and the ones left behind will gladly rise against Israel as the final solution. I love Psa 2 where the rulers plot against God while He laughs.
See, that’s my point. It is not definitive one way or another. There is another interpretation where “the fallen” are actually the sons of Cain. Not of angels.
It’s not really defined in the Bible either way, but I’m OK with that. In reality, it’s not needed to be defined. It’s the overarching moral of the story - that even though some men were huge and physically strong and imposing, God could wipe them all out with a flood, and he could enable a small, young shepherd to beat them with just a rock.
It’s the lesson of the giants that matters, not that they might have come from angels or others.
I 100% agree! In fact, many cultures have stories of a great flood. Yet, according to the Bible, only Noah and his family survived - so how can it be recorded in these other cultures? Additionally, given what we know about genetics and speciation (within species), it seems incredibly peculiar we could have rise of so many races that are genetically different from each other, in just a few thousand years - less than 300 generations!
I think too many people get hung up in trying to use a book intended for teaching spiritual and moral truths - providing an instruction manual on how to relate to and with God - as an objective history book. That's not the point of the Bible, or even of Christianity! It's about how God loves us, how we can accept and revel in that love, and how we can share it with others.
Trying to decide if a person is 900 or 894 or 910 years old based upon copies of translations of writings archiving dozens of generations of verbal stories is simply missing the point and in fact immaterial to the bigger picture, IMHO.
And considering the Bible as absolutely inerrant in its intended application - a guide to God - is not at all incongruent with understanding it's the morals and points of the stories that matter, not the factual nature.
Taking it as a literal, 100% factual historical record leaves one with the huge conundrum of the creation story as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis chapter 1, we have animals created before man. In Genesis 2, we have man created before animals. If it is 100% a factual, science/history book, then something there is in conflict!
However, if we consider it as inerrant in terms of the message, morality, and instruction contained therein, they such issues are irrelevant. What we get from BOTH creation stories is that God created all, He did it with purpose, and He put mankind in a special place. THAT'S the point of the creation stories, not that animals predate or postdate man...
The Book of Enoch is not accepted as canonical by Jews or Christians. It’s interesting, but it’s actually not part of the Bible, nor is it considered inspired by God.
If we do consider it definitive and accurate in terms of what it portrays, do we consider the early Church fathers as misguided in creating the Bible? Wouldn’t that imply the Bible itself is in error? Or is it that the stories within Enoch are interesting but really not important at all to the central teachings of Christianity and Judaism? That what Enoch tells is fascinating but adds nothing to what is taught by all the other books?
I 100% agree and that's what I was trying to convey. Faith does not need empirical proof to exist. In fact, faith without proof is real faith! Demanding proof leaves one no better than doubting Thomas... :) Proof eliminates the need for faith.
Trying to prove something from before written language is a folly. Trying to decipher exact numbers from a book meant to teach a religious and moral path of life is missing the whole point... If Adam lived to be 900, or only 90 - does that fundamentally change Judaism or Christianity? I would argue no!
And as science advances, it looks like we will be able to, in the next 10-40 years, extend human life to well beyond the fabled 120 year limit. Does that mean that the Bible is wrong about how old men can live? NO! It means that how long we live is at the will of God. If He chooses for us to live long, then we do. Otherwise - we don't. We live at HIS mercy, not ours.
Personally, I think that is the message about length of time people lived. God chooses to let those who love Him and follow His voice to live as long as needed, to accomplish what He wants them to accomplish. Turn away, though, and your life may be long - but will be empty, with no real accomplishment to be recorded. It's as if you lived but a day, not a thousand years...
To bad catholics don't apply this reasoning to the six day creation in Genesis.
for later
“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.”
For any third parties who might be tempted to believe this, it’s complete nonsense.
They didn’t have Youtube so it just seemed that long.
But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (the rest of the verse)
There's no conflict. If you read chapter 1 of Genesis, the order that God created is given chronologically. Chapter 2 is a recap narrative of chapter one - NOT a repeat of the order of creation.
I found Enoch interesting as it explained questions many of us have with no answers anywhere else. I agree we don't need to add it to the Bible, but that doesn't make it wrong. Just as an example, Mark 16:9-20 was added later after Mark was finished. The 2 oldest copies we have stop at vs 8. But somehow vs 9-18 ended up in the Book with the oldest copy that contained the verses were about 100 years later.
Instead of saying, "Its' not in there so I don't need it." at least read the story behind why it wasn't included and see more than one view.
"Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."
I realize that many say this has nothing to do with limiting our lifespans, but before (and for a little while after) this, 300/400/500 years was not uncommon and some lived much longer. After Moses died, it seems that lifespans kept decreasing.
Mock and ye will be mocked.
Yeah, I get that but it doesn’t satisfy my mind. Maybe I’ve spent too much time on this topic and 37 years of reading and writing computer code. Ha!
What I do find most disconcerting is the fact the Christian church fathers stopped teaching this because they feared people would find it too lofty to believe. Guess they thought the Genesis story would sound too much like Greek mythology (Read: Hercules being half god, half human).
Also, scripture clearly states the Nephilim were on the earth before and after the flood. When the angelic beings visited Lot’s family seems they were in complete human form as some of the Sodomite men wanted to have sex with them.
IIRC, Christ only “likened the time” of his return with two biblical patriarchs; Lot and Noah. And from my viewpoint I see a common thread; Sexual interaction between angelic beings and humans. (yes, I see the simple meanings - celebrating sodomy like we see today - closing the door of the ark shutting out unbelievers, etc.)
My vigil continues.
And that is another example of my point. The Bible gives two different stories of one event, and one of the stories is a recap (even though it gets some of the details out of order). So those who claim that because the Bible says Adam was 900 years old, then he must have been 900 years old, rather than just "really freaking old".
If we allow the Bible the flexibility to take some liberties with timelines (see the creation story), then we should also allow those same liberties for other things. Arguing about exact durations of lifespans and such is missing the point.
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.