Ray Moscow

I think we need to read the passage in context:

Here the LORD is limiting man's lifespan, for they are naughty in His sight.

ksen

I did not get this from the TLB.

Here's John Calvin's commentary on Gen 6:3:

So this interpretation has been around since at least the 16th century.

Dean Anderson

The Documentary Hypothesis offers a far more plausible reason for the discrepancy between the 120 year limit and the extended ages of the patriarchs.

Here's what I posted in the ongoing BC&H thread about the DH...

ksen

You're still assuming your conclusion that the 120 years has anything to do with limiting human lifespan.

In Gen 5-6 God decides to give the world a time for repentance. When Noah was around 500 years old, according to the text, God called him to start building the ark. Noah finished the ark and entered it with his family when he was 600 years old.

It's perfectly reasonable to see that the timespan from when God made his pronouncement in Gen 6:3 til the Flood was 120 years.

Ray Moscow

Not really. Genesis 5:32 has Noah at 500 years old, and then the flood starts when he is 600 years old (Gen 7:6).

A 120-year period doesn't fit into the narrative.

ksen

Sure it does. It fits quite nicely and it doesn't torture the text into meaning some sort of universal life expectancy for humans.

You are assuming that, in the text, God called Noah right after he made the 120 year pronouncement.

There's nothing in the text indicating that God told Noah to start building the ark as soon as God decided there was a 120 year countdown.

Dean Anderson

On the contrary. I am stating that a plain reading of what the verse says is consistent with everything else the author says - and is therefore far more plausible than the alternate reading which claims that the verse means something different to what it says and then still needs apologetics to harmonise it. Pointing out that a conclusion is more plausible than the alternative is not "assuming" it.

The text says nothing of the sort.

It tells us that Noah was 500 years old when his Sons were born as part of structured genealogy of people's ages when their children were born.

Then it changes subject and style (and author, according to the DH) and starts talking about the flood and the ark.

There is nothing at all in the text to indicate that Noah started building the ark at the time that his sons were born.

And - as your Calvin quote shows - if Noah did start to build the ark at the age of 500, and if the 120 years is supposed to indicate how long it will be before the flood happens, we have a missing 20 years which needs apologising for.


Only if you consider it "perfectly reasonable" that event A happens 100 years before event B, yet event C - which happens after event A - happens 120 years before event B.

Even Calvin saw the problem with this interpretation, and had to resort to discussing the relative merits of different apologies for the discrepancy that it causes.

ksen

We'll need to disagree on what a "plain reading" is because I plainly read Gen 6:3 to mean that God had granted the world a reprieve of 120 years, not that he had limited man's lifespan to 120 years.

Matthew Henry

John Wesley

John Calvin

Adam Clarke

Notes from the Geneva Bible

John Gill

Jameison, Faussett and Brown

John Darby

I'll stand with these guys.

The "missing" 20 years is much easier to account for than trying to fit human lifespan into the 120 years when as far as I know only one biblical character died at 120 years old, Moses.

Like I said, there is a lot less problem when you consider the 120 years as being a time of reprieve rather than the lifespan of humans in general.

Other than your own reading what other support do you have that the text should be interpreted to mean the 120 years is the lifespan of men in general?

Ray Moscow

No, there isn't -- because the text doesn't describe a 120-year countdown. That's a rather strange interpretation that violates the chronology of the narrative, assuming the narrative has a chronology -- which as a reworked myth, it doesn't really need.

Account for how, exactly? By ignoring it?

Dean quite rightly points out that the DH, once again, explains the discrepancies. See -- isn't biblical scholarship helpful? It explains reality without having to make up all sorts of convoluted explanations that abuse the texts.

Ray

Dean Anderson

That is impossible.

Whatever apologetics account for the missing 20 years cannot be simpler than "trying" to fit the 120 year human lifespan - because no trying is necessary. It simply fits perfectly with what the author says elsewhere.

No set of apologetics can be easier than "no apologetics needed".

You can't have "less" than no problem at all. It is impossible. At least you seem to acknowledge that there is a problem with your reading - one which requires apologetics to solve.

1) Because it is the plain meaning of the Hebrew (although if you wish to start going through the Hebrew, I'd suggest we open a thread in BC&H - it's a bit much for GRD).

2) Because it fits perfectly with everything else written by the same author needing no apologetics or explaining whatsoever.

3) Because the author goes out of his way to point out that Moses was still fit, vibrant and healthy when he reached this age limit (an age which the author explicitly mentions - something he does for only one other person) and died - with the plain implication that he died because of this limit rather than because he was sick or old.