Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,275 Year: 5,532/9,624 Month: 557/323 Week: 54/143 Day: 16/11 Hour: 1/1

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?
Member (Idle past 6356 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003

Message 76 of 230 (369823)
12-14-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by arachnophilia
12-09-2006 10:07 PM

Re: you're all wrong.
Alter ...
And the Lord said, "My breath shall not abide in the human forever, for he is but flesh. Let his days be a hundred and twenty years."
Friedman ...
And YHWH said, "My spirit won't stay in humankind forever, since they're also flesh; and their days shall be a hundred twenty years.
Stone Edition ...
And Hashem said, "My spirit shall not contend evermore concerning Man since he is but flesh; his days shall be a hundren and twenty years."
JPS Torah Commentary ...
The Lord said, "My breath shall not abide in the human forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years." ...
So the Lord said, “My spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for 120 more years.”
The Targum of Onkelos ...
And the Lord said, This evil generation shall not stand before me for ever, because they are flesh, and their works are evil. A term (or length) will I give them, an hundred and twenty years, if they may be converted.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ...
[JERUSALEM. And the Word of the Lord said, The generations which are to arise shall not be judged after (the manner of) the generation of the deluge, (which is) to be destroyed, and exterminated, and finally blotted out. Have I not imparted My Spirit to the sons of men, because they are flesh, that they may work good works? But they do works of evil. Behold, I have given them a prolongment of a hundred and twenty years, that they may work repentance; but they have not done it.] notes: "Some interpret this to mean that the age expectancy of people from this point on would be 120, but neither the subsequent narrative nor reality favors this. It is more likely that this refers to the time remaining between this announcement of judgment and the coming of the flood." Similarly, the Commentary notes that the Targumim (as I have shown) as well as Seder Olam, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak all take this as the time before the Flood. One can insist they were all deficient in their understanding of Biblical Hebrew and/or they were being disingenuous and/or they were simply not very bright, but none of these claims strike me as particularly compelling, arachnophilia's efforts notwithstanding.
Throwing pebbles at the Torah strikes me as more juvenile that useful

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2006 10:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2006 1:24 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Member (Idle past 6356 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003

Message 78 of 230 (369870)
12-15-2006 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by arachnophilia
12-15-2006 1:24 AM

Re: you're all wrong.
arachnophilia writes:
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.
My apologies.
arachnophilia writes:
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.
Of course, but I doubt that what motivates and sustains threads such as this is anything even remotely related to responsible textual criticism.
arachnophilia writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2006 1:24 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2006 1:44 AM ConsequentAtheist 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