Edna Parker turns 115 today. She is the oldest person alive today, and only 7 and a half years short of the longest confirmed human lifespan. Happy Birthday, Edna. I hope you break all the records!
Yet Edna Parker is just a youngster by biblical standards. Here's a list of bible characters with life spans longer than Edna's.
- 120 Moses
- 127 Sarah
- 133 Kohath
- 137 Levi
- 137 Amram
- 137 Ishmael
- 140 Job
- 147 Jacob
- 148 Nahor
- 175 Abraham
- 180 Isaac
- 205 Terah
- 229 Serug
- 239 Peleg
- 239 Reu
- 365 Enoch
- 433 Salah
- 438 Arphaxad
- 464 Eber
- 600 Shem
- 777 Lamech
- 895 Mahalaleel
- 905 Enos
- 910 Cainan
- 912 Seth
- 930 Adam
- 950 Noah
- 962 Jared
- 969 Methuselah
It seems strange that the biblical list includes only one woman (Sarah), since women tend to live longer than men. But women in the Bible are lucky to have names, so it's not surprising that God didn't keep track of their life spans.
The Bible doesn't say why people (well, men anyway) lived so long long ago, or why life spans have decreased so rapidly since then. But I suppose it must be that they had a better health care system back then.
14 comments:
Genesis 6:3 says why.
Okay, let's look at Genesis 6:3 in context.
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And 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. Genesis 6:2-3
What do these verses explain to you, Jason?
Did God decide to limit the human life span to 120 years because angels (or whatever the hell the "sons of god" were) had sex with women?
And what allowed humans to live for nearly 1000 years before then?
Genesis 6:3 explains nothing.
These verses explain the decrease in life span. I'm not sure what you're struggling with...?
Oh, I'm not struggling, Jason. I'm having a good time.
But I am wondering why you didn't answer my questions. So I'll repeat them for you.
Did God decide to limit the human life span to 120 years because angels (or whatever the hell the "sons of god" were) had sex with women?
And what allowed humans to live for nearly 1000 years before then?
Did God decide to limit the human life span to 120 years because angels (or whatever the hell the "sons of god" were) had sex with women?
That's not what the text says so the answer is no.
And what allowed humans to live for nearly 1000 years before then?
God.
What does the text say then, Jason?
You said, "Genesis 6:3 says why" [life spans have decreased so rapidly].
So I'll repeat again Genesis 6:3 in its context: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And 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." Genesis 6:2-3
If this verse doesn't say that God decided to limit the human life span to 120 years because angels (or whatever the hell the "sons of god" were) had sex with women, then what do you think it says?
Or were you wrong when you said, "Genesis 6:3 says why"?
You’re asking two different questions. The answer to the “why" life spans decreased is because God made it happen. The answer to the “why” He decreased the life span is because of the wickedness of man.
The wickedness in question, amongst other things, were the marriages between the righteous (sons of God) and the wicked (daughters of men).
So the "sons of God" were good men and the "daughters of men" were bad (but good looking) women. Is that what you're saying, Jason?
Then why do verses 6:1-2 talk about men having daughters that the "sons of God" found fair? Sounds like two very different types of beings to me.
Do you figure the giants in verse 6:4 resulted from the sexual intercourse between the good men and the bad women in verses 6:1-2?
Steve,
The verse makes reference to "sons of God" and "daughters of men". If you'd like to read into this as being "two very different types of beings", please provide evidence that supports this claim.
And the word "giant" in 6:4 simply means "tyrant" or "bully".
As I'm sure you noticed (but chose to ignore), my question referred to two verses, Jason -- Genesis 6:1 and 2. Here, I'll quote them for you.
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
These verses refer to "men" to which "daughters were born" (in verse 1) and to "sons of God" who had sex with the "daughters of men" (in verse 2). Seems like two very different beings to me, Jason.
But to you the "sons of God" are men and "giants" are bullies. And, as you've told us before, Satan is God.
Jason, Berend de Boer would tell you that you are wrong...
But my I respectfully point out that you should consult better sources. God send Noah to be a preacher in 1536 AM, the flood was in 1656, exactly 120 years.
Noah got his first son when he as 500, so in 1556.
What your author reads is that God commanded Noah to build the Ark when he got his first son, i.e. when he was 500. But I think that's reading a contradiction into the text.
Chapter 5 is a genealogy and ends with all people born before the flood. Chapter 6 doesn't start when Noah is 500. It starts at some indeterminate date, see Genesis 6:1, a time when the people started to fill the earth. But from verse 3 we know it was 120 years before the flood and therefore 20 years before Noah got his first son. God called Noah at that time to become a preacher, verse 8. And in verse 10 we read he got sons, i.e. after he was called by God.
What makes your interpretation any more valid than his?
Ah, my mistake. I'll rephrase:
The verseS makes reference to "sons of God" and "daughters of men". If you'd like to read into this as being "two very different types of beings", please provide evidence that supports this claim.
These verses refer to "men" to which "daughters were born" (in verse 1) and to "sons of God" who had sex with the "daughters of men" (in verse 2). Seems like two very different beings to me, Jason.
I'm not sure why you're getting hung up on this idea of sex. The text says "took them wives", does it not? The sons of God married the daughters of men. If you're going to claim these groups are "two very different types of beings", please provide evidence that supports this claim.
But to you the "sons of God" are men and "giants" are bullies.
If you disagree Steve, instead of mocking me, simply state your case.
And, as you've told us before, Satan is God.
That's right. Relevance?
Jason said:
"The wickedness in question, amongst other things, were the marriages between the righteous (sons of God) and the wicked (daughters of men)."
If the sons of god were righteous, why did they marry the wicked women?
And why were the righteous women (daughters of god?) punished with shorter lives too?
If the sons of god were righteous, why did they marry the wicked women?
Because "they were fair" (Gen 6:2).
And why were the righteous women (daughters of god?) punished with shorter lives too?
I'm not convinced it was a punishment in the strictest sense of the word. Much depends on what that word "strive" means (ie. "My spirit shall not always strive with man...")
Post a Comment