CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

In Genesis it mentions how man's life will be numbered to a 120 years (or something to that nature), but is that what it means literally? The longest living woman is recorded to be 122, but I don't think one can take that too seriously. She was born in 1875, a time when birth certificates weren't exactly accurate. Heck, some people got them MANY years after birth or never got them at all!

So can anyone explain? I once read people thought 120 years was how long the people had until God flooded the earth or whatever, but that really doesn't sound like what's it's saying. Plus the longest living man IS recorded at 120.

To me it just sounds like a boo-boo on the recent lady. My mother went to nursing school and I know she told me how even until the 1920's they had people who lacked certificates. Back then it was just a mess, trusting people's ages from that time can be a really tricky thing.

So anyone? It definitely sounds like human error here, but might as well throw it out there. ^^;

In Genesis people lived a lot longer than 120 years.

Battletech is right; even after the flood in Genesis, people still lived long past 120 years, which is why the verse must be talking about the length of time before God sent the Flood, rather than human lifespan.*

*If you subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I agree. Even after the flood, Abraham lived past 100 years. The only recorded person in the Bible I can list who DIDN'T live to 100 was David. He died at the age of seventy.

Agreed with nate and the others... (I also don't take a literal position on Genesis, but I hope to respect those that do to the best of my abilities ) Mind you, the thing that always twisted my brain was that God stated that Adam would die on the same day that he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but at the same time Adam and Eve both lived long after that. This of course makes no sense in context to the other statement without the position that they were dead to God "in sin" (in which case what other tree did they eat off of that caused them to physically die?), which seems to me a bit harsher then just having them die.

*EDITED*

No offense, Pascal, but it still sounded out of line.

Methusulah lived to be 969 years didn't he?

Alright fine . It was only meant to be silly.

[quote="Momo-P (post: 1202039)"]In Genesis it mentions how man's life will be numbered to a 120 years (or something to that nature), but is that what it means literally? The longest living woman is recorded to be 122, but I don't think one can take that too seriously. She was born in 1875, a time when birth certificates weren't exactly accurate. Heck, some people got them MANY years after birth or never got them at all!

So can anyone explain? I once read people thought 120 years was how long the people had until God flooded the earth or whatever, but that really doesn't sound like what's it's saying. Plus the longest living man IS recorded at 120.

To me it just sounds like a boo-boo on the recent lady. My mother went to nursing school and I know she told me how even until the 1920's they had people who lacked certificates. Back then it was just a mess, trusting people's ages from that time can be a really tricky thing.

So anyone? It definitely sounds like human error here, but might as well throw it out there. ^^]

I recollect the bible delineating the human life span as about "three score and ten" years (ie. seventy). That may have been in a different part though. Aside from the fact that I don't see any reason to take mention of the extraordinary life spans as being at all literal, I also see no reason not to take the figure of seventy years as anything other than an average figure. In other words barring accidents and disease, a reasonably healthy person can expect to live about that long. This was also written incidentally in a period without many of the important medical advances that we take for granted today. So an "average" life span of a physically fit and somewhat lucky individual living in the bronze age may be somewhat shorter than a similar individual living in a more technologically advanced age.

Well I wish I could recall how the exact verse went. Just the way it was worded, it didn't sound like God was talking about the flood. It was something like "and now man will be made mortal, and his days will be numbered to a 120". Because of the whole "made mortal" bit, it sounds like it's specifically refering to human aging rather than how many days it will take before the flood.

Unless someone could better explain it? Or heck, anyone who has the verse. Cuz didn't Sarah live past 120 as well?

Can you give the exact verse? As in both chapter and verse? And if it's not too much to add, the surrounding verses as well?

Ahh...Genesis 6:3

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
(KJV)


So it actually says years, not days, though I suppose it still could've been in relation to only a 120 years before the flood came. After all, what kind of way is to word that anyways? It almost sounds like all humans will live to be a 120, and we definitely know that's not true. To pretty much say "there are only a hundred and twenty years left" of human life definitely sounds more like it's refering to the flood. Though I just wanna hear other views. ^^;

God was talking about the present condition of man's heart at that time. He was giving them the space of 120 years to repent and change their ways. That was a pretty good amount of time, seeing the 120 years were over by the time Noah and his sons finished building the Ark.

And as Kitchan noted, you're forgetting about Methuselah. He lived to be 969 years old! And Adam was 930 when he died.

Similar to what K. Ayato said, because the world had became so wicked, Gen 6:3 verse is about Humans having a grace of 120 years before the flood to repent and come back to the Lord.

In my psychology class we talked about how some scientists did research on when the human body just won't live past. And they found that even with all the medical advances in the world, our bodies won't make it past 130 years old. Our cells are only meant to replicate so many times.
So that kind of matches up with the 120 years mentioned in the bible.

Right, sharien chan. (I believe lifespan has to do with the length of the telomeres...?) This is why I don't hold with the statements that people lived to be 900+ years old. I mean, obviously God can do whatever He wants, including making a man live (physically) for nearly a millenia, but...WHY would He do it? That's what I don't understand.

Yes, the telomeres. They're like caps on the ends of the DNA strands, and they shorten every time a cell divides. When there's not enough telomere, the cell can't divide properly, which leaves no option but expiration without replenishment.

I doubt this is a truly insurmountable barrier to longevity. Parents with shortened telomeres make babies with fresh telomeres all the time, so it's not like all cells are doomed to have telomeres shorter than their predecessors. The key will be finding out how to restore cells so that they can continue reproduction.

Human longevity is based on many factors, including the amount of solar radiation we absorb and how hard we have to work in order to make out living. A body that works hard or does not work at all, for example, wears out faster than a well maintained body with easy access to good nutrition and exercise.

Why humans are recorded as living so long then and living for no more than about 120 years now may well be an indication that our environment has changed significantly – perhaps because of events like the flood.

As to why God would design such a system where we could live so long and then allow it to be changed, the simple answer is population. Living for 900 years (and we don’t know the average, but enough are listed at living past 700 that it safe to assume that it was common) would allow humanity to multiply and spread over all the Earth. Lots and lots of children. Once the population reached a desirable level, a change in environment would prevent us from simply over-running the place like rats. (The Earth’s population is roughly 6 billion – how many more of us would there be if we lived 9 times as long and had 9 times as many children?)

And for a little bit of trivia: Did you know Methuselah died in the year of the Flood? Whether or not the flood killed him is unknown, but how long might he have lived?

termyt wrote:Living for 900 years (and we don’t know the average, but enough are listed at living past 700 that it safe to assume that it was common) would allow humanity to multiply and spread over all the Earth. Lots and lots of children.

But that can't be true. Remember Abraham laughed at God when He said that they would have a child. "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" were his words. So that theory that living for 900+ years would allow for more reproduction cannot possibly be true, as from Abraham's words it's obvious that human reproduction capabilities still died out far before even the 100 year mark.

hoo man, first hundred years for reproduction, 600 more to party!

sharien chan (post: 1202378) wrote:In my psychology class we talked about how some scientists did research on when the human body just won't live past. And they found that even with all the medical advances in the world, our bodies won't make it past 130 years old. Our cells are only meant to replicate so many times.
So that kind of matches up with the 120 years mentioned in the bible.

while that may or may not be ture. It is noted that a high nutrient low carb diet will possible increase the rate beyond that

sharien chan (post: 1202378) wrote:In my psychology class we talked about how some scientists did research on when the human body just won't live past. And they found that even with all the medical advances in the world, our bodies won't make it past 130 years old. Our cells are only meant to replicate so many times.
So that kind of matches up with the 120 years mentioned in the bible.

Except 130 is still different from 120, plus it doesn't explain all the people living way past that even after that statement was made. Since God can't lie and the verses should be taken in context (and the subject was leading up the flood), it does make more sense the way everyone has already said.

Man's lifespan quickly decreased after the flood I believe... It didn't just suddenly become 120 years.

Shao Feng-Li (post: 1202588) wrote:Man's lifespan quickly decreased after the flood I believe... It didn't just suddenly become 120 years.

But that still makes no sense.

All these years have passed and yet a person still lived past 120? Considering most later people in the Bible had much more average life spans, it can't be that. And besides, why couldn't it become 120 years early on? God can do whatever He wants. If He decided man wouldn't live past that age, anyone born after the flood should've died at 120. Not kept moving like the energizer bunny. ._.

Also if man's flesh is what made God limit the time to a 120 years, then why did Adam and Eve's children live past that? They were just as "fleshful" as anybody else.

That's right... Gen 6:3 is before that flood happens...

I dunno. I just know that about the time of the flood, man's life span shortened. It happened over a few generations I think...

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is here XD;

In Genesis 11 people aren't living over 900 years too much..

Momo-P (post: 1202605) wrote:But that still makes no sense.

All these years have passed and yet a person still lived past 120? Considering most later people in the Bible had much more average life spans, it can't be that. And besides, why couldn't it become 120 years early on? God can do whatever He wants. If He decided man wouldn't live past that age, anyone born after the flood should've died at 120. Not kept moving like the energizer bunny. ._.

Also if man's flesh is what made God limit the time to a 120 years, then why did Adam and Eve's children live past that? They were just as "fleshful" as anybody else.

God has only on rare occasions done what we'd consider a "violation of natural laws." The proclamation, in my opinion, is as much a warning as anything.

God is about to initiate the flood wiping out all but a handful of the Earth’]But that can't be true. Remember Abraham laughed at God when He said that they would have a child. [/QUOTE] Dude. Really?

What part of my statement has absolutely anything to do with Abraham?

Was Abraham around for he flood? Did he live before the 120 years pronouncement?

He was born some 280 years after the flood.

Abraham lived 175 years and had sons after Isaac, by the way. (See Gen 25)

termyt wrote:What part of my statement has absolutely anything to do with Abraham?

I was merely stating that for Abraham to express incredulity at God's statement, meant that it was the norm for people's reproductive ability to be nil far before the hundred year mark.

He was born some 280 years after the flood.

Maybe so, but look at Genesis 11 (which was mentioned earlier). People are having kids at 29, 30, but still living 500, 400, 300 years. And this is AFTER the Flood, so the theory that living so long provides for more reproduction is still false, since again, Abraham laughed since people close to 100 years old were far from able to have children at that time.

Abraham lived 175 years and had sons after Isaac, by the way.

Yeah, but it was a miraculous event from God's hand in the whole thing...it certainly wasn't normal for men and women over 100 to have kids, Abraham makes that clear.

But that still makes no sense.

And this is the part where I say, "This is why I don't take Genesis literally." :p

My take on it: If you're still confused, make a note to ask God Himself when you see Him in eternity. Remember that our limited minds can't begin to see from His perspective.

Nate (post: 1202669) wrote:Maybe so, but look at Genesis 11 (which was mentioned earlier). People are having kids at 29, 30, but still living 500, 400, 300 years. And this is AFTER the Flood, so the theory that living so long provides for more reproduction is still false, since again, Abraham laughed since people close to 100 years old were far from able to have children at that time.

I'm not sure where your hang up is here, Nate.

There simply is not one shred of evidence in scripture to say that child birth was extremely rare after 100 years of age at all in the accounts scribed in Genesis 5. It's quite the opposite, in fact:

Adam became the father of Seth at 130;
Seth of Enosh at 105;
Kenan to Enosh at 90;
Enoch to Jared at 162;
Lamech to Methuselah at 187;
Noah to Lamech at 182;
Shem, Ham, and Jepheth after Noah was 500.

So, if the Bible is to be believed, the theory thatliving so long has the potential for more reproduction is not only still alive and kicking, but verified true.

In the account of Genesis 11, we learn the birth ages of the key individual, which are all trending much younger, but every one of those accounts ends in "and he had more sons and daughters."

Abraham has still more children after Isaac. In Genesis ch25, we learn the Abraham took another wife after Sarah died and had at the very least 6 more sons. It probably is a lot more rare by this point over 300 years after the flood, but for those who do still live a long time, having more children seems well within the realm of possibility.

There's just no evidence to support that there was some 100 year fertility cut off point regardless of death age.

I believe this thread is a good example of why CAA discourages theological threads. The questions involved will almost always receive opposing answers from different view points. Thankfully people here have been relatively civil, but generally speaking a religious discussion can't go very long before someone pulls the heresy card.

A question such as this especially lends itself to dividing people into two camps regarding interpretation. Thus discussion spins its wheels on this basic difference and goes nowhere. As per CAA rules, thread locked.