Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 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?
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 230 (26525)
12-13-2002 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
12-13-2002 10:57 AM


This is interesting though of course I don't see how an extra 7 years makes too much difference. The fact that man ceased to live 600-900 years seems much more significant. The fact that some lived a little over 120 years does not seem like a contradiction to me. Was 127 yrs the longest since then?
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 12-13-2002 10:57 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John, posted 12-13-2002 10:57 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 230 (26569)
12-14-2002 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by John
12-13-2002 10:57 PM


Most of these are people born before the flood. The change still occured as God had said in the lifespan. What is the argument here? This is weak. Not meant as insult but I do not see a real argument here. If you want to be completely literal then you have an argument. An argument that is too shaky for me.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by John, posted 12-13-2002 10:57 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by joz, posted 12-14-2002 9:32 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 16 by John, posted 12-14-2002 10:22 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 230 (26619)
12-14-2002 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by John
12-14-2002 10:22 AM


Sorry I was wrong.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by John, posted 12-14-2002 10:22 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by John, posted 12-15-2002 11:32 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 230 (26656)
12-15-2002 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by John
12-15-2002 11:32 AM


Sorry I don't really see any implications John. Man ceased to live 600-900 years. I thought that's what that verse was about.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John, posted 12-15-2002 11:32 AM John has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 230 (26720)
12-16-2002 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by John
12-15-2002 11:32 AM


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).
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.
[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John, posted 12-15-2002 11:32 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by thestickman, posted 12-17-2002 3:32 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied
 Message 34 by Weyland, posted 12-17-2002 7:12 AM funkmasterfreaky has not 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

  
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

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024