Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why, if god limited man's life to 120 years, did people live longer?
thestickman
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 230 (26939)
12-17-2002 3:22 AM


Ok sorry, I obviously should have made a reference to which version the quote is from. It is the Good News Bible, revised Australian edition. Ok then, seeing as the main defence for the infallibility of this statement is that in other versions it is a different quote, maybe someone could refer to a thread on bible versions. I mean, isn't all of this still the written word of God, so isn't this version still wrong? And, if this version is wrong, and my school (an Anglican one) uses it, how does it justify the use of a obviously flawed version (maybe i shouldn't be asking that question here, but at my school, but I doubt they are the only ones using this version)? Next time i'll be more specific.
Cheers
Ryan

  
thestickman
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 230 (26940)
12-17-2002 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by funkmasterfreaky
12-16-2002 9:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
To me there is no implication. Science allows anomolys, without changing it's theories because of a few acceptions to a common rule. God still maintained his word in that man ceased to live for 800-900 yrs, and actually tends to live a whole lot less than 120 yrs. This is a weak argument, (imo).

So you are admitting that the fact still remains that god said no one would live longer than 120years and then people did so. So the conclusion is made that the bible is not infallible. Doesn't that seem like an important implication?
And maybe you could tell me what (imo) means.
Cheers
Ryan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-16-2002 9:06 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mark24, posted 12-17-2002 4:28 AM thestickman has not replied
 Message 36 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-17-2002 3:20 PM thestickman has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5273 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 33 of 230 (26945)
12-17-2002 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by thestickman
12-17-2002 3:32 AM


imo = in my opinion
imho = in my humble opinion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by thestickman, posted 12-17-2002 3:32 AM thestickman has not replied

  
Weyland
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 230 (26954)
12-17-2002 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by funkmasterfreaky
12-16-2002 9:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
To me there is no implication. Science allows anomolys, without changing it's theories because of a few acceptions to a common rule.
Actually, science does not allow exceptions to theories. If data is found which contradicts that predicted by a theory, the theory must be modified or discarded. That's what it means when we say a theory is falsifiable - that it is possible to come up with data that will contradict the theory.
Otherwise, when people noticed that Mercuries orbit was different that that predicted by Newtonian mechanics they'd just have said 'Oh, and exception. Let's not worry about that.'
Instead, it was on of the triggers for Einsteins theory of relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-16-2002 9:06 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
Skandoggy
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 230 (27052)
12-17-2002 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by John
12-16-2002 5:40 PM


There's no need to panic, John. I was only trying to help you see this at a level that you feel comfortable dealing with. I cannot read your mind so I didn't know where to start from. I rarely respond to bullies - if you try it again I won't reply.
I apologise for the duplicate postings. I haven't figured a way round that. Either it doesn't post the message atall or does so numerous times!
Anyway, here goes: Every scripture has to be understood within the context of the entire Bible. If you take Ryan's initial sentence out of context it could be assumed that God declared: 'I will not allow people to live forever,' for the first time. This isn't the case. He bestowed that particular curse way before when Adam and Eve violated His commands. This brought Adamic sin onto all unrighteous mankind. Therefore the scripture which Ryan quoted has, logically, to be a reminder of what was already going on at the time. Adam and Eve were designed to live forever in paradisiacal conditions. God has plans to restore those conditions and fill the planet with obedient people after Armageddon. So, it is not true to say that he will never allow folk to live forever again, and indeed, it doesn't say that, but that's what some people may gather if they are unfamiliar with the bigger picture. I couldn't stand around and let something so crucial go over anyone's head without doing a disservice to God. I prefer the two Bibles I quoted from to Ryan's example. The passage in the New World Translation is especially helpful because it supports the fact that obedient mankind will get everlasting life on earth. The word 'indefinitely' conveys the understanding of an undetermined time. You could paraphrase it thus: 'My spirit shall not act towards man for an undetermined time' or: 'I will not allow people to have everlasting life until the time that I determine.'
I do hope this helps you, John.
Now, as for the second sentence, 'from now on they will live no longer than one hundred and twenty years', I'd like to repeat what I said initially. This is all tied in with the effect that the Nephalim had over people in those days. As a consequence of the Adamic sin, Adam's descendants failed to live forever - the point being that this was already happening. It wouldn't be surprising to discover that God restricted the lives of the pre-flood rebels more severely than the likes of Seth, Jared, and those who still found favor with god. If you have a look at Genesis 6:3 you will see that it begins with, 'After that...' After what? After the sons of God (fallen angels) took the daughters of men for their wives... then God pronounced the 120 year maximum lifespan. But the Bible doesn't say it affected anyone else after that. The Adamic sin did, yes, which is why the few survivors of the Flood and each generation ever since did not and do not live forever. Also, the 120 year restriction will not apply to post-Armageddon survivors. I know that's not made clear in Genesis 6:3 but God couldn't have everything in the Bible put on one page, now could he?
This message has taken me about fifty years to compose and I hope that it has shed a little light on things for you. I'm not here to try and win points. I originally replied to Ryan's query because he seemed to genuinely want answers. It would be great to think that you read this in the same manner that I wrote it. I'm not sure who your god is (Satan maybe? yes/no???) but there's nothing to stop you praying to Almighty God if you want more answers. I've often found it amazing as to how He finds ways of opening my eyes.
Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John, posted 12-16-2002 5:40 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-17-2002 6:00 PM Skandoggy has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 230 (27054)
12-17-2002 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by thestickman
12-17-2002 3:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by thestickman:
quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
To me there is no implication. Science allows anomolys, without changing it's theories because of a few acceptions to a common rule. God still maintained his word in that man ceased to live for 800-900 yrs, and actually tends to live a whole lot less than 120 yrs. This is a weak argument, (imo).

So you are admitting that the fact still remains that god said no one would live longer than 120years and then people did so. So the conclusion is made that the bible is not infallible. Doesn't that seem like an important implication?
And maybe you could tell me what (imo) means.
Cheers
Ryan

This is interesting, we as Christians get ridiculed for taking the bible too literally quite often. However when it is more convenient for the disbeliever to reverse the process to suit their argument that's okay too.
I still maintain that the lifespan of man shortened very significantly and very quickly. I don't see the argument here. Sorry I mean no offence, I think in this case, that this is being combed with a ridiculously fine comb. The same one that when it passes other areas seems to become much more course.
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by thestickman, posted 12-17-2002 3:32 AM thestickman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John, posted 12-18-2002 12:02 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 230 (27075)
12-17-2002 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Skandoggy
12-17-2002 3:12 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skandoggy:
[B]I was only trying to help you see this at a level that you feel comfortable dealing with.{/b][/quote]
What does that mean?
quote:
I rarely respond to bullies - if you try it again I won't reply.
Bully? Telling you to make your case is being a bully? Cutting short your childish game is being a bully? Sorry. I don't buy it.
quote:
I apologise for the duplicate postings. I haven't figured a way round that. Either it doesn't post the message atall or does so numerous times!
The key is patience, sometimes a whole lot of it.
quote:
Anyway, here goes: Every scripture has to be understood within the context of the entire Bible.
No it doesn't. The various books were not written at once but over a period of hundreds of years, perhaps a thousand. Thus, they are sequencial, at least in part. The BIBLE itself didn't exist until it was compiled for Constantine. Prior to that there were thousands of seperate books, most of which didn't make it into Constantine's collection.
quote:
If you take Ryan's initial sentence out of context it could be assumed that God declared: 'I will not allow people to live forever,' for the first time.
Why does it matter if this was the first time or not?
quote:
He bestowed that particular curse way before when Adam and Eve violated His commands.
Hence, the Adamic sin questions. See how easy it is to just say what you mean?
quote:
Therefore the scripture which Ryan quoted has, logically, to be a reminder of what was already going on at the time.
Genesis 6 writes:
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. 3 And the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.'
Logically, verse 3 is a reaction to verse 2, and verse 2 is not about what happened in the Garden. It is about what was happening between humans and the Sons of God.
quote:
So, it is not true to say that he will never allow folk to live forever again, and indeed, it doesn't say that, but that's what some people may gather if they are unfamiliar with the bigger picture.
So verse 3 wasn't God talking?
quote:
I couldn't stand around and let something so crucial go over anyone's head without doing a disservice to God.
You have been quite unconvincing. Sorry.
quote:
The word 'indefinitely' conveys the understanding of an undetermined time. You could paraphrase it thus: 'My spirit shall not act towards man for an undetermined time' or: 'I will not allow people to have everlasting life until the time that I determine.'
Why is it that the verse is not translated as such? Perhaps because that isn't what it says?
quote:
This is all tied in with the effect that the Nephalim had over people in those days.
Obviously. That is what verse 2 asserts, and that is what you appear to be trying to deny.
quote:
As a consequence of the Adamic sin, Adam's descendants failed to live forever - the point being that this was already happening.
You've made this part up. I don't know how else to respond. This is patently not what the Bible says on the issue.
quote:
If you have a look at Genesis 6:3 you will see that it begins with, 'After that...' After what? After the sons of God (fallen angels) took the daughters of men for their wives... then God pronounced the 120 year maximum lifespan.
1) It didn't effect even those that were alive at the time.
2) Where are you seeing "after that"? Do you mean in Gen 6:4?
Genesis writes:
4 There were men of great strength and size on the earth in those days; and after that, when the sons of God had connection with the daughters of men, they gave birth to children: these were the great men of old days, the men of great name.
Seems like, after that humans and angels made babies who became the great men of old.
quote:
But the Bible doesn't say it affected anyone else after that.
Nothing in the passage suggests this interpretation.
quote:
The Adamic sin did, yes, which is why the few survivors of the Flood and each generation ever since did not and do not live forever.
But lived longer than GOD allowed. This is the point. GOD specifically said no more than 120, but people went right on living to absurd ages.
quote:
Also, the 120 year restriction will not apply to post-Armageddon survivors.
Nice of you to speak for God. I'm sure he appreciates it.
quote:
I know that's not made clear in Genesis 6:3 but God couldn't have everything in the Bible put on one page, now could he?
Made clear? Made up, by you. Sure, you can't put the whole story on the same page but you can make it not conflict with itself.
quote:
This message has taken me about fifty years to compose and I hope that it has shed a little light on things for you.
I am sincerely stunned by the mental gymnastics, no offense intended (honestly).
quote:
It would be great to think that you read this in the same manner that I wrote it.
Depends on how you wrote it. Was it written in the spirit of apology, as it seem? Or in the spirit of honest reflection?
quote:
I'm not sure who your god is (Satan maybe? yes/no???)
Do I have to have a god? Satan? That's funny. LOL.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Skandoggy, posted 12-17-2002 3:12 PM Skandoggy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-17-2002 6:49 PM John has replied
 Message 42 by Skandoggy, posted 12-18-2002 12:14 PM John has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 230 (27080)
12-17-2002 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
12-17-2002 6:00 PM


quote:
Genesis 6 writes:
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. 3 And the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.'
Logically, verse 3 is a reaction to verse 2, and verse 2 is not about what happened in the Garden. It is about what was happening between humans and the Sons of God.
Genesis writes:
4 There were men of great strength and size on the earth in those days; and after that, when the sons of God had connection with the daughters of men, they gave birth to children: these were the great men of old days, the men of great name.
Seems like, after that humans and angels made babies who became the great men of old.
John I'm not sure of your interpertation of this particular piece of scripture, it's one I've heard before and wondered about.
What I am thinking "Sons of God" may be is the descendants of Adam after the banishment of Cain. While the "daughters of man" may be the descendants of Cain.
I'm not trying to assert that I am correct on this matter, just wondering if you had thought/heard of this idea.
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-17-2002 6:00 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by John, posted 12-17-2002 7:14 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 230 (27088)
12-17-2002 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by funkmasterfreaky
12-17-2002 6:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
John I'm not sure of your interpertation of this particular piece of scripture, it's one I've heard before and wondered about.
Take a look at this page:
NCCG.ORG - NEFILIM - Understanding the True Origins of Mormonism - Chapter 25 - The Fallen Angels
I said angels, but the word actually means "fallen ones" which tracks with what I was told as a kid.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-17-2002 6:49 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-17-2002 8:26 PM John has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 230 (27101)
12-17-2002 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by John
12-17-2002 7:14 PM


Thanx for the link this is the argument I've heard before. Somehow it doesn't measure up to me. "Fallen ones" could still mean descendants of Cain. I'll have to look at this some more. The scripture they gave to support it was not clearly a support of their argument.
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by John, posted 12-17-2002 7:14 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by forgiven, posted 12-21-2002 9:02 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 230 (27122)
12-18-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by funkmasterfreaky
12-17-2002 3:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
This is interesting, we as Christians get ridiculed for taking the bible too literally quite often. However when it is more convenient for the disbeliever to reverse the process to suit their argument that's okay too.
Lets think about this. The Bible is the word of God. Thus, we must accept what it teaches. You've got two choices here, as I see it. You can take the Bible dead literally. In which case you end up crashing into mountains of conflicting data, internal and external to the Bible. Option two is to accept that the Bible is a metaphor. The problem is that once you admit to metaphor, you may as well admit that the Bible is not reliable. Once it becomes open to interpretation by humans it becomes subject to error, or rather, it becomes incapable of preventing error. It becomes a guessing game, and who needs divine guidance that is subject to our whims?
quote:
I still maintain that the lifespan of man shortened very significantly and very quickly.
So God didn't mean what he said then? God had to ramp down slowly? God did not say he would shorten the human lifespan quickly and significantly. He said NO MORE THAN 120 YEARS for RIGHT NOW.
quote:
I don't see the argument here.
Of course not, since to admit that the Bible is wrong here would through doubt on the rest of it too.
quote:
Sorry I mean no offence, I think in this case, that this is being combed with a ridiculously fine comb. The same one that when it passes other areas seems to become much more course.
Fine comb? God says 120 years. We find out that someone lived 120.5 years. To complain about that would be using a find toothed comb. You have a discrepancy of, at its extreme, 3.641666667 times the length of the longest lifespan God said he'd allow.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-17-2002 3:20 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by shilohproject, posted 12-22-2002 10:15 PM John has replied

  
Skandoggy
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 230 (27216)
12-18-2002 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
12-17-2002 6:00 PM


John, I strongly recommend that (A) you re-read my message and (B) you get someone to help you understand the points which escape your comprehension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-17-2002 6:00 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by John, posted 12-19-2002 11:35 AM Skandoggy has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 230 (27365)
12-19-2002 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Skandoggy
12-18-2002 12:14 PM


Isn't this the height of childish. Are you, by any chance, ten?
Why do you think these games are good for your cause?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Skandoggy, posted 12-18-2002 12:14 PM Skandoggy has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 230 (27586)
12-21-2002 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky
12-17-2002 8:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Thanx for the link this is the argument I've heard before. Somehow it doesn't measure up to me. "Fallen ones" could still mean descendants of Cain. I'll have to look at this some more. The scripture they gave to support it was not clearly a support of their argument.
my thinking is, peter and jude might have a slightly better idea than me as to what should be considered "scripture"... since they both quote from enoch, they considered it to be scripture.. as someone said, the bible is a whole (john disagreed but john's disagreement was based on a disbelief in inspiration... if inspired, there is a reason for everything written)
now then, read 2 enoch then read gen 6 again.. what scripture do you have in support of your claim, funky?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-17-2002 8:26 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 230 (27696)
12-22-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by John
12-18-2002 12:02 AM


[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
quote:
Sorry I mean no offence, I think in this case, that this is being combed with a ridiculously fine comb. The same one that when it passes other areas seems to become much more course.
John replies:
Fine comb? God says 120 years. We find out that someone lived 120.5 years. To complain about that would be using a find toothed comb. You have a discrepancy of, at its extreme, 3.641666667 times the length of the longest lifespan God said he'd allow.
[/B][/QUOTE]
John, et al,
I wonder if this discussion might be helped by considering an earlier passage. Genesis 2.17 reads(KJV): "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat: for IN THE DAY that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Emphasis mine.)
I have heard it preached many times that this refered to "spiritual" death, which would allow for the obvious contradiction between the threat/promise and the recorded story, which includes a life for Adam & Eve much longer than midnight of that day.
Of course, that is not what the text says. What are your thoughts?
-Shiloh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John, posted 12-18-2002 12:02 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by John, posted 12-24-2002 12:04 AM shilohproject has replied
 Message 82 by 3fojurky, posted 01-07-2007 6:04 PM shilohproject has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024