Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,133 Year: 5,390/9,624 Month: 415/323 Week: 55/204 Day: 31/24 Hour: 3/5


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?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1453 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 75 of 230 (368749)
12-09-2006 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by timothy44
12-09-2006 3:40 PM


you're all wrong.
except dr. bill.
God does not say that the shortening life span will be immediate.
you're thinking about this all wrong. let's start with what the text says.
quote:
, —- ‘ ——, ‘’, ‘; ,
v'yo-amar yahueh, "lo-yadon ruchi b'adam l'olam, b'sha-gam basar hu v'hayu yomiu meah v'esrim shanah."
and-said yahueh, "no-fighting soul(mine) in-man(kind?) to-eternity, in-who-also flesh he, and be(his) days(his) hundred and-twenty years.
and [the lord] said, "my soul will not struggle over man for eternity. because he is also mortal, his days will be 120 years."
or more idiomatically,
quote:
and the lord said, "i will not be bothered with mankind anymore. but because he is fallible, he has 120 years"
look at the context in genesis 6. this god saying mankind is a pain, and nothing but trouble. he is tired of fighting with or judging them, something that grieves him to his soul. he decides to destroy mankind -- ALL mankind. but god, being a loving and forgiving god, gives mankind 120 years to shape up. take a look a bit down the page. 100 of those years are spent building a giant boat. it is not a coincidence that this passage uses a number so close to the duration of noah's ark building term.
this is not a limit on human lifespan. to read it as such is to misunderstand the usage of adam in this verse, and then to take the verse entirely out of textual context -- all of which has to do with god wanting to wipe ever living thing off the face of the earth. but to assume it applies to human lifespan is to do more than to read it ouf context. while there are internal conflicts, it seems a little ludicrous this time. maybe the fact that only two people in the entire book of genesis die before their 120th birthday is a product of editting different documents together (this is j. genealogies are p). but to have internal descriptions in j of noah living a lot longer? and shem? and abraham? it requires the author of a single document to have made a big important point explaining something, and then totally forgotten about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 3:40 PM timothy44 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-14-2006 9:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1453 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 77 of 230 (369858)
12-15-2006 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by ConsequentAtheist
12-14-2006 9:35 PM


Re: you're all wrong.
arachnophilia's efforts notwithstanding.
i think you misunderstand? my point is exactly what you have said above, and the 120 years is not a limit on individual human lifespan, but a timeframe for god extermination of mankind as a whole.
Throwing pebbles at the Torah strikes me as more juvenile that useful
well, finding contradictions is actually useful for some purposes. for instance, it can help us understand that construction of the text (ie: documentary hypothesis), and the goals of the redactors.
but it's foolish to throw pebbles over something that is so easily explained, consistent with the context of the text, so as to not be contradictory. reading something out of context, and ignoring the grammar and implication so as to distort the meaning is wrong whether it is in support of religious ideology, or against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-14-2006 9:35 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-15-2006 6:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1453 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 80 of 230 (372135)
12-25-2006 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by ConsequentAtheist
12-15-2006 6:27 AM


Re: you're all wrong.
Foolish and stupid, but also disrespectful. Much of this can be mitigated by assuming the religious mythos of the Torah to reflect an honest effort on the part of a sincere and intelligent people.
yes, generally. though i could make at least one case for purposeful dishonesty.
but it is better to start with the assumption that the people who wrote the bible were intelligent, and honest. they might have thought a little differently than us, and they might have had different priorities -- they seem to favor recording tradition over accuracy. many conflicts arise because they chose to respect the integrity of the source over the consistency and definitive qualities of the volumne.
but we make a mistake when we start thinking of them as backwards, delusional, or schizophrenic people. it is every bit as significant a mistake as when we start thinking the book was written by god. a reasonable, rational approach is always the best course.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-15-2006 6:27 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1453 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 84 of 230 (375242)
01-08-2007 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by 3fojurky
01-07-2007 6:04 PM


Hello, this is my first post here. This answer is quite easy if you believe that the authorised version (king james version, kjv) is the only inspired word of God. Many false bibles are sent into the world to decieve many..
i find the idea that kjv is the inspired word of god, but the documents it was translated from are not, rather peculiar. there are many translations, and some render this verse especially poorly.
but i believe that earlier in this thread i gave a very comprehensive explanation using the original hebrew. in any case, it's the same as yours. it's simply the most logical reading of the verse, in any language.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by 3fojurky, posted 01-07-2007 6:04 PM 3fojurky has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1453 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 98 of 230 (377391)
01-16-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Taz
01-16-2007 2:28 PM


Re: Closing time?
yes, i think that is the consensus between believers and non-believers here. i suggest the kjv-only-ist tangent this thread has derailed into be taken to another thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Taz, posted 01-16-2007 2:28 PM Taz 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