ksen

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

======================================

I know there are a number of biblical scholars on this forum (professional and amateur).

So I'd like your opinion about the 120 years.

I maintain that the proper interpretation is that the 120 years was a period of "grace" or "respite" given to the world then to repent before the flood.

Some on this thread argue that the 120 years was meant as the length of a human's life.

Can any of you shine light on this topic?

Thanks.

John Kesler

I think that this is the correct interpretation. As I discuss in this thread, and as Moscow mentions in the thread you reference, the contention that the 120-year period refers to the amount of time before the flood is chronologically flawed.

Clouseau

Either interpretation is permissible from text and local context. It is likely that the 120 years was an elapsed 'grace period', because Ge 11 has Noah's descendants living much longer than 120 years.

None of these great human longevities need be taken literally anyway. They are symbols of decreasing divine favour, reducing to the 'three score years and ten' that is still probably an approximate global average.

ksen

Thanks for the link.

Dean Anderson

Can any of our resident Hebrew scholars shed any light on this?

One argument I have seen is that in the Hebrew, the "his" in "his days shall be..." is a singular, and this means that the verse is therefore talking about individuals only living 120 years - and that if the verse were referring to mankind only lasting another 120 years it would have used a plural...

Sound a plausible argument?

Clouseau

If 'adam' means 'man' as distinct from 'mankind', it means that the verse is referring to a single individual living 120 years.

Dean Anderson

Yes - but that single individual may be generic rather than particular. For example, if I say "a dog has four legs", I am grammatically referring to a single dog, but that dog is standing in for all dogs.

In English we would have three different ways of expressing this:

1) mankind are mortal: they will only last 120 years.
2) a man is mortal: he will only last 120 years.
3) Adam is mortal: he will only last 120 years.

The first of those three would indicate that the verse is talking about mankind as a whole. This is how ksen says the verse should be translated, and means that mankind will be wiped out in 120 years time.

The second - which uses a singular "he" rather than a plural "they" - would indicate that the verse is talking about a generic man (and by extension all men individually). This is how I think the verse should be translated, and means that there is a 120 year limit imposed on human lifespans.

The third - which also uses a singular "he" -is talking about a specific man, and would indicate that that particular man will die in 120 years time. No-one here is advocating that this is the best translation, but I have seen it advocated elsewhere.

The question is which of those three most closely matches the Hebrew...

ksen

While waiting for a BC&H regular to show up I just did a little digging over at Blue Letter Bible.

In Gen 6:3 the word used for "man" is 'adam.

In Gen 6:1 the same word, 'adam, is translated as men.

To me that would indicate that interpreting 6:3 as meaning mankind in general is perfectly reasonable.

Clouseau

But that is the common noun meaning of 'adam'.

Not so. Man (sing. common noun) is mortal; its (= 'his') time is 120 years.

Dean Anderson

Careful - assuming you simply clicked on the "Concordance and Hebrew/Greek" link that BlueLetterBible puts next to the verse, the list of Hebrew words produced simply shows the root of each word - not the actual case and tense used in the verse.

For example, verses 6:1 and 6:3 both use words derived from the root אדם ('adam), but the actual words in the verses are different. Verse 6:1 uses האדם whereas 6:3 uses באדם.

However, I am aware that 'adam can be translated as "man", "mankind" or "men" - that's why I was stressing that it is whether the grammar of the later part of the verse uses singular of plural forms that is important.