Did people really live 900 years? Explore Genesis lifespans, the Sumerian King List, genetic theories, and ancient Near Eastern symbolism behind the numbers.
To say genetic entropy is disputed in mainstream science is probably giving too much credit for it. As a biologist, I had never heard people talk about this other than among YEC "scientists".
The first two views would have been be possible if the earth was young, but it isn't.
I actually don't care that much whether people believe the earth is young. You can believe the earth is flat and still be a Christian. It's not a salvation issue. My real concern is that people base their faith on YEC, and when they find out the earth is not young (which the evidence strongly support an ancient earth), their whole faith collapse with it.
There are certain parts of the bible that you definitely don't take them literally, like gauging out your eyes or cutting your limbs off. But you still can believe Jesus rose from the dead, right? We need to read the Scripture faithfully, meaning reading it in context and cultures. Literal interpretations should not be our default position but rather we need to understand what the authors of the Bible were trying to communicate to the original audience. The Bible is written for us, but not to us.
The modern western world is a hyper-literal culture, the highest form of communication is be as literal as possible, but that is not the case for Ancient Near Eastern cultures.
The saying that "if you can't take the Bible literally then you cannot believe it's true" is a very dangerous idea promoted by hyper YECism.
I did not say everybody who embraces YEC has faith built on it, my parents don't, and many of my good friends don't either. But there are people who do.
Is it common sense though? I think it's only the common teaching within YEC, not others.
lol...reading scripture in context is overrated? sure... I don't even know what to say there lol... just speechless.
Idk what you meant by ANE cultures were evolutionary. No one believes that. The Bible is not a scientific book, and no one is extracting evolutionary theory from it.
I see where you are coming from. I was a YEC and very familiar with the YEC teachings like from AiG. But I think I will stop here, I just wanted to encourage you to read beyond what you have been taught with an open mind. God bless. :)
From an apologetics point of view I found this really interesting. I always try to avoid allegorical interpretations when they aren’t clear, but there is an argument to be made for legitimacy here well done.
I do believe we can maintain a literal interpretation, however, without needing to invoke a naturalistic explanation. We must remember it is our separation from God in our sin that brings death, not a purely naturalistic cause.
If Adam and Eve were literal (and I think the biblical evidence shows they were), then they went from being immortal to being able to die in an instant. That is a dramatic shift in the human condition, and I do not think a purely natural explanation is either sufficient or necessary to explain it. For that reason, a natural explanation would not necessarily be required for those whom God allowed to live longer. We also see clear examples in Scripture of God extending life, so the explanation may simply be supernatural.
That said, I do think is wise to understand the various naturalistic views as they are also very possible explanations to a mystery that likely won’t be solved in this life.
If literary, what is the point of the genealogies with a bunch of names; if the numbers are to indicate greatness, why list an intermediate number (so and so lived x years, begat child, lived y years and died)?
Among the many problems with the “vapor canopy” idea is the fact that so much extra water above us would produce a huge greenhouse effect. Pre-flood creatures would have been cooked.
This I like. Focusing on the point and intent of the narrative rather than getting pointlessly bogged down in explaining every detail, which has never changed a non-believer’s mind anyway.
I’ve often thought that this is a “translation” issue. Consider swapping “months” or “days” for “years”. Then, some living into their 900’s lives to about 75 years. Likewise, someone living to 28,000.
Here’s the short answer: No — ancient Hebrew did not confuse “months” or “days” with “years.” The language had clear, distinct words for each unit of time, and the biblical writers used them consistently. However, later interpreters sometimes misunderstood certain idioms, which can look like confusion if you’re reading the text through a modern lens.
I have heard a theory where humans did not eat flesh or meat before the flood and that contributed to longer lifespans. We only started eating animals after
The flood because there was nothing else to eat. Is there any truth to that theory?
A good overview of some views on this.
To say genetic entropy is disputed in mainstream science is probably giving too much credit for it. As a biologist, I had never heard people talk about this other than among YEC "scientists".
The first two views would have been be possible if the earth was young, but it isn't.
But it is.
xD
https://cjleow.substack.com/p/the-evidence-cries-out-for-an-ancient
Thx for the link. I read it.
Prefer the YEC model still. They are good at explaining why some of the assumptions baked into the old earth are shaky foundations.
Also,
How can you know Jesus rose from the dead, and I assume you believe that, if we cannot understand the bible literally?
I actually don't care that much whether people believe the earth is young. You can believe the earth is flat and still be a Christian. It's not a salvation issue. My real concern is that people base their faith on YEC, and when they find out the earth is not young (which the evidence strongly support an ancient earth), their whole faith collapse with it.
There are certain parts of the bible that you definitely don't take them literally, like gauging out your eyes or cutting your limbs off. But you still can believe Jesus rose from the dead, right? We need to read the Scripture faithfully, meaning reading it in context and cultures. Literal interpretations should not be our default position but rather we need to understand what the authors of the Bible were trying to communicate to the original audience. The Bible is written for us, but not to us.
The modern western world is a hyper-literal culture, the highest form of communication is be as literal as possible, but that is not the case for Ancient Near Eastern cultures.
The saying that "if you can't take the Bible literally then you cannot believe it's true" is a very dangerous idea promoted by hyper YECism.
First you say salvation is not a YEC issue and then you go on to say those who embrace YEC have a faith that will collapse. Which is it?
The idea that if you cannot take the bible literally (when you can), then you cannot believe it’s true is not hyper YEC. It’s common sense.
And using ANE culture to interpret scripture is overrated. Scripture interprets scripture no matter what other evil cultures believed.
And by the way, I doubt very much ANE cultures were evolutionary.
I did not say everybody who embraces YEC has faith built on it, my parents don't, and many of my good friends don't either. But there are people who do.
Is it common sense though? I think it's only the common teaching within YEC, not others.
lol...reading scripture in context is overrated? sure... I don't even know what to say there lol... just speechless.
Idk what you meant by ANE cultures were evolutionary. No one believes that. The Bible is not a scientific book, and no one is extracting evolutionary theory from it.
I see where you are coming from. I was a YEC and very familiar with the YEC teachings like from AiG. But I think I will stop here, I just wanted to encourage you to read beyond what you have been taught with an open mind. God bless. :)
From an apologetics point of view I found this really interesting. I always try to avoid allegorical interpretations when they aren’t clear, but there is an argument to be made for legitimacy here well done.
I do believe we can maintain a literal interpretation, however, without needing to invoke a naturalistic explanation. We must remember it is our separation from God in our sin that brings death, not a purely naturalistic cause.
If Adam and Eve were literal (and I think the biblical evidence shows they were), then they went from being immortal to being able to die in an instant. That is a dramatic shift in the human condition, and I do not think a purely natural explanation is either sufficient or necessary to explain it. For that reason, a natural explanation would not necessarily be required for those whom God allowed to live longer. We also see clear examples in Scripture of God extending life, so the explanation may simply be supernatural.
That said, I do think is wise to understand the various naturalistic views as they are also very possible explanations to a mystery that likely won’t be solved in this life.
Good break down of the naturalistic theories!
Thanks Justin. And to your point that is true, and arguably the most historic perspective.
If literary, what is the point of the genealogies with a bunch of names; if the numbers are to indicate greatness, why list an intermediate number (so and so lived x years, begat child, lived y years and died)?
Maybe because they couldnt keep a track of those very old patriarch, since they became legends over the years
It would seem if one takes the literary view then Methuselah was the most revered man in the writing of Genesis genealogy.
For sure.
Among the many problems with the “vapor canopy” idea is the fact that so much extra water above us would produce a huge greenhouse effect. Pre-flood creatures would have been cooked.
I agree.
This I like. Focusing on the point and intent of the narrative rather than getting pointlessly bogged down in explaining every detail, which has never changed a non-believer’s mind anyway.
I’ve often thought that this is a “translation” issue. Consider swapping “months” or “days” for “years”. Then, some living into their 900’s lives to about 75 years. Likewise, someone living to 28,000.
According to Copilot:
Here’s the short answer: No — ancient Hebrew did not confuse “months” or “days” with “years.” The language had clear, distinct words for each unit of time, and the biblical writers used them consistently. However, later interpreters sometimes misunderstood certain idioms, which can look like confusion if you’re reading the text through a modern lens.
I was thinking more that things got bungled between the time of Noah and the codification of the torah 500+ years later.
I believe God actually says he will shortened their lives, after the flood …
"Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.'" (ESV)
Hadn't thought about that, fair point.
I have heard a theory where humans did not eat flesh or meat before the flood and that contributed to longer lifespans. We only started eating animals after
The flood because there was nothing else to eat. Is there any truth to that theory?
I have also heard that, but the sacrifice that Abel presents (animal), plus the herding of animals seems to imply they ate meat.
You had me at Neil.
I like InspiringPhilosophy quite a bit.