Jayjay

This question should be asked in christian forums, but I don't frequent any so II has to do... I am hoping that there are those who know how apologetics would answer the following dicrepancy between the bible and reality:

In Genesis 6:3 God says "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." However, french Jeanne Calment, born 1875, lived to see her 121st birthday. So, how do fundies explain this? Did God lie? Was the year longer those days? Is Jeanne's birth certificate a forgery? Was this just a "rounding error" like the value of pi being three?

Rhea

Not really sure, especially as in the following verse, Gen 6:7

or later still,

Guess he outlived all of his children, and their children and their children and theirs.



Perhaps this is the origin of the "Gandfather Clause"?

Jayjay

Noah and his kids were still alive when God set the limit, and being a nice guy and all he didn't want to screw them over I guess. Anyway, that one is easy for apologists to wrap their heads around. Actually having a real person living over 120 seems to be a harder question.

Hasn't anyone ever seen fundies being asked this question? How do they respond (beyond the regular ranting and pointless preaching, that is)?

Christian

JayJay,

If you insist on wooden literalism, then everyone who dies a day short or a day later than their 120th birthday contradicts this verse, as does the case of Elijah who didn't die at all but was taken up directly into heaven.

I believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallable in the original manuscripts, but that doesn't mean that wooden literalism is the only way to interpret a verse. There is a whole science behind how to understand scripture, called "hermeneutics."

God's statement in Gen 6:3 is at the beginning of the story of Noah's flood. Before the flood people in general were living anywhere from 500 to 900 years. After the flood, people in general were living into their 100s if they were lucky.

At the time of Noah's flood, God change the rule of thumb of how long people live, if their life is not cut short. Instead of man's days being about 900 years if he's lucky, man's days became 120 years if he's lucky. A major change, but still a rule of thumb.

Respectfully,

Christian

Grumpy

By "wooden literalism," do you mean interpreting the verse to mean lifespans of exactly 120 years? Or in believing that there was a giant Flood, and before that people lived as long as 900 years? Which is it, because there's some ambiguity there.

Mageth

Christian, the obvious problems are that there is no geological or other evidence that supports the global flood story (quite the opposite), and no archaeological evidence that anyone ever lived to the 600-900 year range. Our teeth, organs, etc. simply aren't made to last that long, and never have been. Historically, even the age of 120 years is exceedingly rare, even today in the age of modern medicine, better nutrition, etc.

B. H. Manners

The longest anyone has ever lived was up to the age of 127, if my memory serves me correctly (getting old you know ). There is a possibility a man may haved lived to 140 back in the late 1700's,but it has not been proven conclusively and probably never will be. One reason is the fact people didn't keep records (birth certificates, ID) back then as well as today and the second is the simple fact that health care sucked so bad back then.

Christian

Grumpy,

By "wooden literalism" I mean assuming the most literal definition for every single word regardless of context (textual or historical) or literary device. For this verse to be a contradiction at all the assumption of a wooden literal interpretation has to be made. There are very few, if any, Christians who interpret all verses in a wooden literal sense.

This is a rule of thumb (apparant from the context). Interpreting the verse to mean lifespans of exactly 120 years is bad hermenutics.

I'm talking about techniques of interpreting scripture. Whether or not the scripture is actually true is a distinct topic. I believe that scripture is true, and that there really was a great flood and that people lived to be 900 years old before that.

Let me know if that doesn't clarify the point.

Mageth,

No evidence of any kind that even supports the idea of a global flood? You're pretty casual about tossing around absolute terms. I'll accept that you havn't seen any evidence for a global flood that you personally find compelling, but that's a different concept than what you just stated.

I could point you to the Bible itself as evidence. The presence of a global flood story in that particular ancient text is in fact evidence that supports the idea of a global flood. You may not personally find that evidence convincing, but that's a different thing than suggesting that no evidence exists.

The article HERE offers some geological evidence of a global flood. You may not find it compelling, but it is evidence that supports the flood theory.

Personally, I'm not convinced that it was global anyway. THIS article argues convincingly (in my opinion) that a localized but still catastophic flood is consistent with scripture.

Also THIS article offers some evidence to support longer life spans.

BH Manners,

Even fewer birth certificates and ID cards from 6000 years ago have survived.

Respectfully,

Christian

Jayjay

Yes, obviously questions like this are aimed at "wooden" biblical literalists, to force them to admit that bible is not so accurate after all. What if John 3:16 is just a "rule of thumb" too? Or the ten commandments? Fundamentalists have a real problem if God's word is based on "rules of thumb" rather than the absolute, unchanging Truth as they claim.

Edited to add:

Before there were records of anyone living past 120, fundies would have used this passage as proof that God set the limit exactly at 120. I mean, if you have a handful of people living past 110, and none past 120, wouldn't you think it's an amazing coincidence that an ancient text from times when life expectancies were thought to have been about half of what they are now mentions 120? (Of course, the fact that this part of genesis comes from babylonian mythology, and that babylonians used base 60 has nothing to do with it... )

The "hermeneutical" interpretation that it's just "around 120" has no basis in the context of the passage. If we didn't have anyone living over 120, no literalist would say that it's a "rule of thumb", because the only reason to do that comes from the fact that there are some people who've lived longer.

B. H. Manners

"BH Manners,

Even fewer birth certificates and ID cards from 6000 years ago have survived.

Respectfully,

Christian"


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------