Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,130 Year: 5,387/9,624 Month: 412/323 Week: 52/204 Day: 28/24 Hour: 0/5

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?
Inactive Member

Message 1 of 230 (25565)
12-05-2002 10:00 AM

Well my name's Ryan and i'm new and currently consider myself to be agnostic. I am currently reading the bible and was struck, right near the beginning, with what seemed to be a glaring contradiction. In Genesis 6:3 'The the Lord said "I will not allow people to live for ever; they are mortal. From now on they will live no longer that 120 years"'. Now, after this there are examples of people living longer than 120 years (genesis 23:1 'Sarah lived to be 127 years old' being one of them). Now i know there are many believed contradictions in the bible and they are continually refuted (although not always with proper reasoning and fact) and I tried to find reasoning for this seemingly massive contradiction, but couldn't find any. So, any help?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 12-05-2002 10:31 AM thestickman has not replied
 Message 3 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-05-2002 12:26 PM thestickman has not replied
 Message 7 by doctrbill, posted 12-05-2002 10:07 PM thestickman has not replied
 Message 8 by Skandoggy, posted 12-13-2002 10:43 AM thestickman has not replied
 Message 13 by Skandoggy, posted 12-14-2002 7:13 AM thestickman has not replied
 Message 14 by judge, posted 12-14-2002 7:22 AM thestickman has not replied
 Message 66 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 2:12 PM thestickman has not replied
 Message 67 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 2:15 PM thestickman has not replied
 Message 73 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 3:40 PM thestickman has not replied
 Message 81 by Origen, posted 12-29-2006 10:31 PM thestickman has not replied
 Message 103 by herrmann, posted 05-22-2007 8:50 PM thestickman has not replied
 Message 105 by carnutter23, posted 08-12-2007 7:31 PM thestickman has not replied
 Message 107 by pbee, posted 08-16-2007 9:00 PM thestickman has not replied
 Message 108 by Refpunk, posted 08-18-2007 11:04 AM thestickman has not replied
 Message 112 by simple, posted 10-06-2007 5:07 AM thestickman has not replied
 Message 119 by Creationist, posted 12-02-2007 3:47 PM thestickman has not replied
 Message 137 by Peg, posted 01-18-2009 8:55 PM thestickman has not replied
 Message 227 by simple, posted 06-24-2010 11:40 PM thestickman has not replied

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.

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

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.

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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024