Christian

JayJay,

Not sure if you were looking for me to respond, but as long as I'm here ...

I'm afraid I'm missing your larger point here, but let me at least clarify that interpreting scripture properly is systematic, not arbitrary. You read the surrounding text. You look at the words used (as best you can, it helps to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but there are many very useable aids available for the run of the mill Christian like me). You consider how the point made in that verse fits into the overall flow of that section of scripture. You find out as much as you can about the historical context (again, many helpful aids available for folks like me who are neither scholars nor theologians); In other words you try to put yourself into the shoes of the folks who originally heard or read those words ... what would they have understood it to mean? You consider other relevant issues on the same topic. You pray for wisdom and discernment from the Holy Spirit. You scrub your own thought process and your conclusions for any trace of personal pet peeves, so that you can eliminate any personal bias as much as humanly possible. If you are still uncertain you are interpreting the verse correctly it's a good idea to compare interpretations with friends whose insights and hermeneutical skills you respect. You can also check out different commentaries. You can also seek the opion of teachers and pastors in the church.

It's a little bit different than just arbitrarily making the verse say whatever is convenient.

Are you are asking how it is possible for sweeping generalizations to exist in an infallable and inerrant book?

There are many examples of completely true statements that are sweeping generalizations. For example: "Human beings have 2 eyes." That is a true statement, and yet I know someone who only has 1 eye. The statement is still absolutely true because I was asserting a general principle, not declaring an absolute. The general principle is absolutely true (as a general principle).

The Bible is absolutely true in what it is saying. It's not absolutely true in things that it is not saying. The point that the inspired author is making is absolutely true. The point that the inspired author is not making is not absolutely true.

When scripture makes a sweeping generalization, it is a valid one. When scripture states an absolute, it is a valid one. The way you discern the difference is through the technique I outlined above.

In short, every point scripture makes is completely truthful. But you do have to first discern, as objectively and systematically as you possibly can, exactly what that point is.

False dichotomy. See above.

From what I have read on this board so far, "fundie" seems to be a synonym for "strawman." I can't speak for all Christians, only from my personal perspective, but the context surrounding this verse seems so obvious that I have difficulty imagining someone interpreting this verse in that way. There may be such a person somewhere out there, but they would be quite rare.

I'm curious where you get your information about how long people lived 5000-6000 years ago. How exactly did you arrive at the number 60? How do you know how long people lived then? What is your source for this piece of information, and how reliable is it?

Personally, I would find it very difficult to accept Christianity if it flatly contradicted all other religions on every point. Christianity isn't the opposite of all other religions, it's the culmination of all the true parts in all religions. If Babylonian mythology reflects this part of Genesis as you suggest, then I have a very good explaination for that. Because it's what actually happened. No religion or mythology is 100% false.

Could you please elaborate on why you think that is the case?

Fact - The chapter immediately previous (Gen 5) to this verse is a geneology that lists lifespans anywhere from 365 years up to 969 years. All the people listed in that geneology were born before the flood.

Fact - A similiar geneology given just after the flood (Gen 11) gives lifespans which gradually decrease from 600 down to 119. (By the way Rhea, I enjoyed your theory on the origin of the term "grandfather clause!" )

That is what I refer to as "context." Given the context, I understand Gen 6:3 to mean that God shortened man's potential lifespan from roughly 900 years to roughly 120 years. In fact that is the only interpretation I can see that fits the context.

Please elaborate on why you think the context does not support my interpretation.

That statement is simply false, as I have demonstrated.

Respectfully,

Christian

Secular Pinoy

If you want to discuss these points from a scientific perspective, then I suggest you repost them in the Evolution/Creation Forum. We'll be waiting.

Mageth

Originally posted by Christian
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.

No, I mean there's no evidence that supports the story of a global flood. Period.

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.

Well, you could point to it, but the bible is merely evidence that someone recorded a flood myth a few millenia ago, not evidence of the truth of the global flood.

Do you consider the various records of Greek/Roman mythologies to be actual "evidence" of the events and creatures that appear therein?

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.

That's not "evidence"; it's a "Tas Walker/AiG Creationist fantasy."

The real story of the Fluidization Pipes in the McKay Sandstone.

[MODS et al: I've tried several times with the above link, and can't get it to display properly...??? It seems to be the apostrophe...

Here's the URL: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_dump_on_aig's_tas_walker.htm
]

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.

I'm sure there have been many localized, catastrophic floods in the past. There's evidence for them, after all. But consistent with the biblical flood account? I think not:

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

That description is most definitely not consistent with a localized flood. Further, why have an ark to save the animals, and Noah, if God could have just had them move to higher ground?

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

I'm not the one to respond fully to all of the content of this link; post it as a topic in Science & Skepticism or, better yet, Evo/Cre, for a full-scale deconstruction of Hugh Ross et al's arguments. I do have a few comments, though:

From the article:

Reactive Oxygen Species - These new discoveries in ROS suggest that one way God could have designed humanity to live for 900 years and then acted to decrease man’s life expectancy at the time of the Flood would be to make subtle changes in the level of SOD and catalase enzyme expression within cells.

Shown to extend the life of fruit flies and worms by @40%. Big whooptee doo. How exactly does that relate to increasing the lifespan of humans by, what, somewhere around 800%? One requires a scientific explanation, not wild conjecture.

Caloric Restriction - Selectively reducing food intake (calories) by 30 to 70% can extend life span by up to 40% for a wide range of creatures from yeast to mammals. ...The fruit fly work demonstrates how God could have helped control mankind’s life expectancy by altering the activity of a single gene.

And again, 40% doesn't equate to 800%. Caloric restriction may possibly add ten or so years to your life, but 800? Again, one requires a scientific explanation, not wild conjecture.

Telomere Loss - God could have changed human life expectancy simply by varying telomerase activity.

I see a pattern emerging here..."God could have...". More wild conjecture.

Genome Size - God might have designed the large human genome to allow life spans of 900 years.

Nice change. Used "might have" rather than "could have". Even more wild conjecture.

Vela Supernova

This is just flat-out wrong.

Talkorigins on supernovae and YEC

From the talkorigins link:

This last shows that Ross are either seriously mistaken and/or underinformed about the science in this case, or deliberately "stretching the truth", to put it politely. What does that say about the rest of their "could haves"?

My evaluation of Ross et al's article is that it's a desparate attempt to find anything in science that might support the "infallibility" of the biblical account of pre-flood long lifespans, and then saying "See, God could have/might have/may have...". I'm sure audiences of people who want to believe eat up that considerable list of "supporting evidence from science" they present.

Unfortunately, real science requires one to do quite a bit more than the authors do, such as actually providing evidence that any one or more of their wild conjectures actually applies to the human species 10000+ years ago, which they do not.

Bob K

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/stndrdsholybks.html

Without standards for analyzing/evaluating/judging [A/E/J or a/e/j] people/things/events [P/T/E or p/t/e], anything goes, emotionalism reigns: if it feels good, it must be true/if it feels bad it must be false; if it is wanted, it must be true/if it is not wanted, it must be false; etc.

Here is a list of standards for the analysis, evaluation and judgment of holy books:

1. The gods, if they exist, must be subject to the same laws of logic as are men.

2. Holy books not only in their original form but all copies and translations must be inspired, written, guided, etc. by gods, not written by men.

Eyewitness books/reports ought to be separate from holy books, clearly marked, and their authors clearly biographed.

As men write, we might expect them to make mistakes; but when the gods inspire/write/etc., we should be able to expect that they should not make any mistakes.

3. The presence of contradictions of any kind in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Contradictions shall include (1) differences of temporal sequences; (2) exclusions/inclusions wherein details excluded in one story or account are included in another story/account, and vice versa.

Holy books should not contain multiple stories of the same people/things/events existing/occurring at the same timepoints and in the same locations. Multiple stories are unnecessary; one story should be sufficient to give all the details which are true.

The presence of multiple stories containing contradictions concerning the details of the same p/t/e's existing/happening at the same timepoints and location logically means (A) one story is true and (B) all others are false or all stories are false, because all (C) stories which contain conflicting/contradictory details could not possibly be true. Thus, the presence of conflicting/contradictory multiple stories shall be proof/evidence that they were written by men and not inspired by gods.

4. The presence of historical inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

5. The presence of archaeological inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

6. The presence of hypocrisy by the gods in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Hypocrisy shall be (A) saying one thing [setting standards/guidelines/commandments/etc.] and doing another or (B) doing one thing in one situation and something else in other similar situations.

Gods should be logical and free of hypocrisy. They should be consistent in all that they say and do. Inconsistencies shall be clear and obvious evidence of the hypocrisy of the gods, or else that the stories/accounts in which inconsistencies of the gods are presented are written by men and not inspired by gods.

7. The gods should inspire/etc. the writing of holy books in a simple form comprehensible to all people of all cultures/ethnic groups [so any translations would have the exact meaning] so that any possibility of having to be a scholar of ethnic literary devices as a qualification for who should be able to read accurately and effectively holy books is eliminated--so normal people [nonscholars] would be qualified to read the holy books, not just priests/scholars.

Kosh

Welcome back Bob K! Where ya been?

Bob K

Kosh:

Kosh Quote:Thanks!

'Been doin' all kinds of stuff -- solving problems hear and there, running for Governor of NH [not a joke], teaching music, playing gigs, writing music instruction books, writing marvelous missives/tremendous tomes/excellent essays/etc. on the Deism of the US Founders [Washington/Jefferson/Franklin/Madison/Monroe/Adams the Father/Adams the Son/etc.] present at the US Constitutional Convention and who managed to keep God out of the US Constitution and Xns from screwing up the government by inistituting Xnity to be the de facto state religion of the US and implementing thrills and excitements such as The Inquisition and thus injuring innocents and basically screwing up governments, as Xns have so done in the past in Europe as well as elsewhere, according to Charles Thompson, secretary and historian of the US Continental Congress [proving the the US was Not founded as an Xn nation], warning fans of the website [ www.bobkwebsite.com ] of violent content in the Muslim Koran/Qur’an which proves Islam is not a peaceful religion, unless you agree that violence against those who do not believe as you do is okay, and that beating your wife, or, as the case may be, wives [apparently allowable by Muslim law], is okay, and annoying people with the Theory of Invariable Time-Intervals, the Theory of The Perfect Observer, etc.

[Pause for applause, hopefully punctuated by screams of adoration, which are always permissable]

'Just turned 60 2/3/43.

[Pause for sympathetic “Awww ...” s from the fans]

I am probably the only man in American who is looking forwards to being in a nursing home.

[Pause for startled gasps, possible guffaws]

Every nursing home I've ever seen has a room where during the day they have the arts and crafts--macramé, etc.,-- and the Saturday night parties and the Sunday morning church services.

And they always have at least a spinet piano, sometimes an organ.

I am a professional musician/entertainer.

I can play either a piano or an organ.

I figure that when I get to a nursing home I will be a star as long as the fingers are still working.

By the way, do you know the secret to being able to play the piano or organ as brilliantly as I do?

[Pause for crowd reaction]

Hey! If you don’t toot your own horn/play your own piano/pound your own organ, so to speak, who else will???

The Secret: Make sure your fingers never leave your hands!

[Pause for laughter/applause, recognition of brilliant humor]

That’s only logical--it would be had to play the piano keys with nubs/knuckles instead of fingers!

If all goes well, I’ll be playing for the Saturday night parties, and the little old ladies will come wheeling up to me in their wheelchairs and hand me their room keys.

[Pause for “Yeah!”, “Right”, and miscellaneous eye-rollings]

Maybe by the time I’m 85 years old and 85-year-old gal will be looking okay to me, if you know what I mean!

[Pause for guffaws and more eye-rollings]

After the party, I’ll pick the one I want, and we’ll trundle off to her room, and we’ll close the door, lock it, and brace a chair up against the doorknob, so no one will come barging in at an inopportune moment, ...

... then I'll turn to her, and say, “Honey, would like to make a little love?”

And she’ll say to me, “Well, you know we have to get up in the morning and go to church, ...”

And I’ll say, “Well, if we’re not finished by then, we’ll quit!!!”

[Pause for laughter and applause]

By the way, do you know that the Nursing Home Theme Song is?

[Sound of soft, slow rock music in the key of C major with a heavy backbeat]

“And now ... the end is near ... and so I face ... the final curtain ...” [The words/music from the song, “My Way”]

Followup #1: In case anyone thinks I’ve gone over the edge with this routine, consider this: If at the end of your life, if your body has betrayed you and become, more or less, your prison, if you could look back on your life and see that, for the most part, you have been able to do what you want your way, then the song, “My Way,” becomes an appropriate Nursing Home Theme Song.

Followup #2: This actually happened, and I could not have planned it to have happened as it did ...

I finished playing a concert at the Peabody Nursing Home in Franklin, New Hampshire, and was talking with the entertainment director, and showing her some books of song lyrics we could use for singalongs. She looked at the type size, 12 point Times, and said, “The type is small, I’m not sure our guest can read it. Let’s see if one of our guests can read it.” She then handed a singalong songbook to a 94-year-old lady guest, opened it, pointed randomly to a set of lyrics, and asked the guest to read it. I kid you not, the guest read thus: “And now ... the end is near ... and so I face ... the final curtain ...” The entertainment director quickly thanked the guest, grabbed the book, took it away, and said, “Wrong song!”

Anyways, since at age 60 I am now considered ancient, I thought I’d check into local nursing homes to get a head start, get my stuff together, get moved, and settled into the routine, etc., but the nursing home staff figured that my testosterone levels are probably still too high and that I would be a menace to female guests and employees, so they turned me down [pun intended], ... Maybe I will have to wait until I’m 85 before checking in to a nursing home.

Warning: If you notice, whenever you engage in a conversation with someone over 60 much of the conversation deals with medical problems instead of sports, the opposite sex, business, etc., so when you innocently, and politely, ask, “How are you?” or, in your case, “Where ya been?”, you stand to receive a 20 minute to 2 hour dissertation on the 60+ individual’s past and current and future medical problems, which is boring when you are young, but not-so-boring when you are over 60 yourself and thus might have or otherwise be headed for the same or similar medical problems and would like to know what the other guy went through so you can therefore know and understand at least a little of what you might have to go through.

As I still retain some of my faculties and thus still retain my awareness of this phenomenon, I do my best to avoid letting medical problems dominate conversations with family members/friends/students/etc.

Nevertheless, as you can see, the subject did come up, ...

malookiemaloo

I am going by memory as I haven't read that part of the Bible for a while but I think when God said that man's days would be 120 years He was not saying that you live for a lifespan of 120 years. He was saying that in 120 years time mankind would perish ie the flood would come.

Late God shortens the days to 70 years 'but if by reason of strenght you live to 90 years YET YOU SHALL STILL DIE'.

Obviously God was not taking a super literalist approach here as the emphasis was not on how long a man lives but the inevitably of death.


Alistair

Gringo

Many Christians I know interpret Genesis 6:3 as to be God's 120 year warning to Noah that He was about to destroy mankind, with the exception of Noah and his immediate family.

Christian

Yep, that would be another possible interpretation, consistent with the context.

Respectfully,

Christian

anime

These are generally taken as meaning 120 years before the Flood. But this mistake has been made by not observing that the word for "men" in Genesis 6:1,2 is in the singular number with the definite article, as in verse 3 "man", and means THE MAN ADAM. The word "also" clearly refers to him. It has no meaning if "men" be read, in the plural. It means, and can mean, only that Adam himself, "also", as well as the rest of mankind, had "corrupted his way".(See note 1) If "men" be the meaning, then it may be well asked, who are the others indicated by the word "also"?

In Genesis 2:17, the Lord God had declared that Adam should die. Here, in Genesis 6, it was made more clear that though he had lived 810 years he should surely die; and that his breath, or the spirit of life from God, should not for ever remain in him.

This fixes the chronology of verse 3, and shows that long before that time, Anno Mundi. 810, and even before Enoch, this irruption of fallen angels had taken place. This was the cause of all the "ungodliness" against which the prohecy of Enoch was directed in Jude 14, and which ultimately brought on the fulfilment of his prohecy in the Judgement of the Flood. See See App. 23 and App. 25 .

1 (beshaggam) because that also is so pointed in the Codex Hilleli. This makes it the Infantry Kalends (calends) of shagag, to transgress, go astray, and means, "because that in their going astray, he (Adam) also is flesh".