Did they really live that old?

by JH 39 Replies latest jw friends

  • blacksheep

    To me, that's just one of the thing that proves that the bible is just a conglomeration of myths; basically evolving humans' primitive attempt to explain the unexplanable and to give life some sort of (egocentric) purpose.

    To me, it's basically: who knows how the heck we got here. We've got to show some purposeful reason why; and, oh by the way, let's make sure we can trace our lineage back specifically to one forefather. Makes it easy when the early guys lived 900+ years. That helps explain how the world got so populated in a short time...basically throw 10-12 generations (no, I"m not going to touch THAT definition, lol) into one single person.

    Let's just say I wouldn't hire the bible authors (whoever those MEN might be) to take our national census! Word of mouth *myth.*

    Curious if any orthodox, die hard bible thumpers have an explanation. Wasn't the JW explanation that "man was closer to perfection then"? Also related was the notion of angels breeding with human women to create a bunch of "mighty men" in opposition to Jehovah.

    Right. I'm sure there's a "scientific" explanation for that one.

  • TruckerGB

    How long can a 969 year old man tread water?,well if it was for only half an hour,perhaps thats why he didnt make it 970.

    I read something about these supposed great ages that people lived to a while ago,as this interests me as well.

    Now these are not my ideas,Im no scientist,but the theory as a possibility I read about,was that if there was a great cataclysm in the way of a worldwide flood,there would have been a tremendous amount of water vapour in the atmophere,which would have blocked out most of the harmfull radiation from the sun i.e ultra violet light,which is one of the things that makes us age and go wrinkly,so it could have been possible for people to live longer.

    Where did this worlwide flood come from?,again stuff ive read,but maybe the stories that make up the old testament of the bible,go back a lot further than they are given credit for,racial memory,I dont know,but maybe a distant echo from when the ice age ended,after all,people were around then,that looked much the same as we do today.

    Dont laugh too much at these ideas,as I said,its stuff ive read about,there not mine,but at the same time,I find them food for thought.

    Take care,


  • Valis

    truck...Fox & Hound freak boy...nothing wrong with that....its funny to note that for a long time scholars focused on other cultures that used natural events to explain what happened around them...nothing new, or a concept that should be laughed at...just one that consistently gets ignored most importantly by anthropologists that believe in the bible.


    District Overbeer

  • onacruse

    In Genesis in Space and Time, Francis Schaeffer makes a couple of interesting comments (p. 124-5):

    Prior to the time of Abraham, there is no possible way to date the history of what we find in Scripture. After Abraham, we can date the biblical history and correlate it with secular history. When the Bible itself reaches back and picks up events and geneologies in the time before Abraham, it never uses these early geneologies as a chronolgy. It never adds up these numbers for dating.

    There is a third reason why it should be quite obvious that these geneologies are not meant to be a chronology. If they were, it would mean that Adam, Enoch and Methuselah were contemporaries, and that just doesn't seem to fit at all. If this were the case the silence of the Bible in regard to these interrrelationships would seem curious. But the situation is even more striking after the flood, because in this postdiluvian era if geneology were chronology, all of the postdiluvians, including Noah, would have still been living when Abraham was 50 years of age. That would seem impossible. Furthermore, Shem, Salah and Eber would have all outlived Abraham, and Eber would still have been living when Jacob was with Laban. The simple fact is that this does not fit into the rest of biblical history. We will consider this further when we take up Genesis 10-11, but at this particular place we can say very clearly that the Bible does not invite us to use the geneologies in Scripture as a chronology.

    Of course, if this is true, then the WTS calcs for 1975 go right out the window...but then, that's not news.


  • ballistic

    Anyway, unless Adam remembered his birth day, how would the writer of Genesis know how old he was?

  • Robdar

    I have nothing to add to this thread. I just popped in to say that it's one of the better ones I have seen in a while. Good responses from all.


  • JH
    I just popped in to say that it's one of the better ones I have seen in a while.

    Thanks alot !!!!!!!!!!

    Did you mean good question, or good answers...

  • Francois

    Hi Logans, and thanks for your kind remarks about my, er, humor. I do what I can when ever I see an opening to weasel in a funny remark.

    As to the other stuff, I don't KNOW any of this stuff for a fact, and I'm not really presenting it as fact. I'm presenting it as an informed, educated opinion. I started out my higher education in organic chemistry, switched to particle physics, and - in something of a simple twist of fate - switched again to journalism since I was in radio, TV, and newspaper journalism paying my way through college and I really liked it. But I never gave up my interest in, my insatiable curiosity for science. I can put two and two together with the best of them.

    Lessee, yes, you are correct. I totally reject the notion of the ransom. Mainly because of the nature and character of God that would have to be the case in order for the ransom sacrifice to be true. Sacrifice? Even the word is offensive, reeking as it does of primitive men and women dancing around a fire just before they toss an infant into a volcano so that the rains will come (just as they do every year, infant or not). Nope. I can't, won't, don't accept that concept of who and what God is. Why do we need to buy into this primitive concept of God with all the blood and sacrifices and foreskins and horseshit? It is very offensive to the "scientist" part of me. So since I don't buy into the ransom, that means of course I don't buy into the atonement concept, which also means I don't buy into the idea or the reality of original sin. What a beastly idea is this original sin business. Unworthy of God, unworthy.

    But we HAD to come from somewhere. Life on this planet had to have a start of some kind. And I believe firmly that life got here via evolution when a smart molecule(s) were released in the warm, shallow seas of this planet by agents of Deity. Which brings me to the second item implicit in your question. Yes, I believe in God, and I believe he/she/it was and is behind the evolutionary motive force of life on this planet - and everywhere else. And I don't really think that any of my speculations have to follow any known pattern of logic. That is a function of the left brain. Strides in physics now are being made via use of the right brain. Think of quantuum physics and you'll know what I mean.

    I think we are intellectual babes in the woods here. Look at it this way. We did not progress through four hundred years of the Newtonian/Cartesian Paradigm only to arrive at the unchangeable NOW. We STILL are taking baby steps in our knowledge of cosmology. And spiritually, well. If we still are worshipping a God who has got to see the blood of a wholly innocent and much-loved son before his tender mercies are forthcoming, we've really got a ways to go before we can claim understand the real nature and character of God.

    In the end, I do not for a moment believe that, when all is told, there will be any arguments at all between science and religion. None. How could it be otherwise when the God of religion is also the uncaused cause of philosophy and science?

    The Bible? Pitch the entire Hebrew scriptures. The gospels? Take 'em with a grain of salt. Written years after the facts they perport to portray by old men who didn't understand The Master when He was standing among them. Read and think about what Jesus was really saying in his parables, and while we're at it, let us not make metaphor of every parable. I don't believe they were meant like that. Jesus was attempting to get across a new concept to intellectually naive fishermen, and tax collectors and whatnot. And he was doing so using language that would not at the same time cook his goose with the Pharisees. Parables. We cleave to His use of God as King, but we forget all about his use of God as Father. The Jews were looking for a King, and when His apostles wrote about Him and His doings they spun the story to make it comport with their expectations. So. You then must sift through what the apostles wrote to tease out the real meaning of Jesus' parables. Paul? Pitch Paul, except for his statement "God is Love." All the rest? Grain of salt.

    In fact, I don't believe the bible is necessary for continuing enlargement of the spiritual nature. Jesus clearly said, "The kingdom of heaven is within you." No parable there. Well, if it is, then it is contactable there. And therein lies the entire meaning and goal of spirituality (as opposed to religion): contacting the spirit that lives within and then following the leading of that spirit. And once one begins to follow the leading of the Spirit, He will lead you into all truth.

    And we're just getting a start on understanding this. Oh, there have been spiritual geniuses in all ages, most of them anonymous, some not, like Buddha, like Gandhi, St. John of the Cross, Thomas Merton, Krishnamurti, and on and on. But, to me, the answer to enhancing spirituality is not to be found in reading about the spiritual journeys of someone else; it is found in the entreaty to "be still and know." To quiet the chatter of the left brain, and to search for, to grapple for, to grovel for, to find and to know the indwelling spirit which is "closer than your own breath" to you. That to me is spirituality, the real thing. Religion is just a social phenomena. No group of men sitting in conference trading opinions and voting can have any meaning to a truly spiritual person. Let them contend. I have the spirit within saying in its quiet, low voice, "this is the way." And so do you, and so does everyone else. It's just a matter of getting still enough and quiet enough and sincere enough to actually hear the leading of this Cosmic Mind.

    I MUST stop. I feel like I've over-answered your question by several orders of magnitude. However, I always learn something when someone asks me why I believe what I believe. It's good to have to stop and think about it and see if I explained myself. Did I?


  • Farkel

    : Adam lived 930 years. (Genesis 5:5)
    : Seth lived 912 years.(Genesis 5:8)
    : Methuselah lived 969 years.(Genesis 5:27)
    : And Noah lived 950 years. (Genesis 9:29)

    My advice? Never try to debate with people who believe in comic books. After all this same book of the Bible wants us to believe in talking snakes! (Snakes have no vocal chords, so true believers are forced to believe that invisible demons are ventriloquists! Imagine that! God invented the first weapon of war (the flaming sword in Eden). God wasn't smart enough to find Adam and Eve when they "sinned" so he had to yell out and hope they answered. God didn't know how many wicked people there were in Sodom, so he had to use Lot to knock on doors and figure out who was wicked and who wasn't. Luckily for the people of Sodom, Lot wasn't selling Watchtower magazines or books. They ended up better off being toasted into salt pillars than they would have ended up being Watchtower drones.

    God permits LOT to rape his daughters, but fries Lot's wife (she was known merely as "Lot's Wife") for turning around out of curiosity and looking at her town getting screwed by the God who also screwed her up. Lot gets mentioned in Hebrews 11 for being a Good guy. Lot's wife who was such a second class citizen that she never even got her name mentioned in the Bible, is known to be an imfamous bitch who dared challenge God.

    YET, Lot DID dare challenge God and got God to give him time to find at least a few righteous people in Sodom, and God didn't mess him up like he did Lot's wife for merely turning around and taking a peek at God's mass-murder of an entire Culture.

    As I said, never try to debate with people who believe in comic books.


  • Francois

    Appeal to Ridicule

    The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

    1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
    2. Therefore claim C is false.

    This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.


Share this