Did Adam really live to be 930 years old?

[angellous_evangellous]

The problem we have Dave is that unless we sat in a lawn chair with a can of Budlight and saw it happen neither of us will change our minds. I have found enough proof in the very fact if there is love and hate, good and bad, that there must be a cause and a reason.

So I have come to a point where I must either believe God or man? I have the Bible which backs up my belief and you have science to back up yours. The best part of free will is we both have a choice and I don't look down on anyone who defends science or any other belief. How could I, the evidence is so overwhelming you would have to be a fool not the believe in science. Well I am just that fool, a man who got caught up in the dogma of God and his Bible. I enjoy it, makes me feel good, and I see improvements in my life everyday. So I may be weak and looking for simple comfort, I'm okay with it. I'm so glad that I found a meaning of life, a purpose, the idea of eternal life excites me. If I'm wrong and die then I die a happy man. So then what difference does it make that I believe. I don't miss out on anything, I enjoy all the things you do. I just chose to swallow my pride and admit I'm a sinner, I fall short, I'm no better then any other person on this planet.

You've seriously contradicted yourself here.

(1) For you, seeing is not believing, because you have established a dichtomy between science and the Bible, which demonstates that you approach the Bible as a scientific text, which it is not. The Bible is not a product of reason or scientific method and therefore should not be approached as science. Science is the apparatus by which we "see" the world, and various fields interpret the findings of science to give meaning to the world. The Bible does neither.

(2) You contradict yourself because we are sitting on a lawn chair observing the world with our eyes, and we are seeing phenomena that is contradictory to a "scientifically" literal interpretation of the Bible. The problem is that you refuse to interpret scientific data scientifically because no metaphysical qualities of the Bible (the existence and activity of God, for example) can be associated with any scientific inquiry or interpretation of scientific data. So you refuse to see anything that threatens what you feel is the best interpretation of the Bible, which is a serious and fatal misuse of the text.

(3) Lastly, proof does not exist for faith. If your belief is associated with proof, you don't have faith, but a scientific quantitative understanding of the world which in your case has illogical and unsubstantiated conclusions. You've put the Bible in a situtation where it can be disproven scientifically because you are using it as a science book. Unfortunately for your case, the Bible is not the product of scientific method.

It is by faith and faith alone that we can give glory, honor, and worship to the Creator of the Universe.

 

[jeffrey]

1st off, if Adam did exist, which I doubt, I don't think he would have known what a year was, let alone be able to count to 930, have his children write it down, because 4,000 years later, people would write the Bible, and need to know this. :jam: I'm sure Noah took Adam's journal with him on the Ark.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

1st off, if Adam did exist, which I doubt, I don't think he would have known what a year was, let alone be able to count to 930, have his children write it down, because 4,000 years later, people would write the Bible, and need to know this. :jam: I'm sure Noah took Adam's records on the Ark.

:biglaugh: That's funny!!

How many people fled New Orleans with their ancient genealogies?

Why don't we start a thread on how old Thor was, or any character from Homer or another myth?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Look at the life spans from Adam through Noah you will see that there is a steady decrease in longevity. My theory, there was a lingering and decreasing effect, passed through subsequent generations, from Adam eating of the tree of life.

 

[Abram]

1st off, if Adam did exist, which I doubt, I don't think he would have known what a year was, let alone be able to count to 930, have his children write it down, because 4,000 years later, people would write the Bible, and need to know this. :jam: I'm sure Noah took Adam's journal with him on the Ark.

Ooohh, great thought. Then that would answer the idea why Adam didn't write anything. Think how wise you would become after 930 years.

 

[jeffrey]

Abram, I very much believe in God, but not the God of the OT, but the God as described by Christ, as shown by Christ. Man needed an explaination of were he came from, IMO, this is what he came up with. It doesn't hurt to believe it. I just don't see God that way.

 

[Abram]

You've seriously contradicted yourself here.

(1) For you, seeing is not believing, because you have established a dichtomy between science and the Bible, which demonstates that you approach the Bible as a scientific text, which it is not. The Bible is not a product of reason or scientific method and therefore should not be approached as science. Science is the apparatus by which we "see" the world, and various fields interpret the findings of science to give meaning to the world. The Bible does neither.

This is going off subject but I love to share the world my eye balls.
What you see in and find in science is different then what I find and see. I found lots of science that can show that the world might be young. So if in court of law and there was some doubt, there would be no case. So being that there is no case that means science has neither proved it right or wrong. To some it has become total truth because like me they want to believe so much their idea is right. Again, you either believe God or man?

(2) You contradict yourself because we are sitting on a lawn chair observing the world with our eyes, and we are seeing phenomena that is contradictory to a "scientifically" literal interpretation of the Bible. The problem is that you refuse to interpret scientific data scientifically because no metaphysical qualities of the Bible (the existence and activity of God, for example) can be associated with any scientific inquiry or interpretation of scientific data. So you refuse to see anything that threatens what you feel is the best interpretation of the Bible, which is a serious and fatal misuse of the text.

If any man wants proof that there is no God, it is me. That is why I'm here, to be there when science can explain good and bad and the origin of it. I'm a power hungry man that would love to dominate a nation, in fact would probably be a terrorist. This though, until I can prove without a shadow of a doubt there is no God and there will be no discipline for my actions I won't.

Science will never find God, it can't. If God created the world he in turn created science. Therefore he is above science. Did you know that there has always been a thoery for a old earth. This has always been a question, just when the world thinks it's about to descover the truth they find something else and it all tumbles to the ground. Just because my team is not winning in the science world right now, do I change teams, or wait for the next match up?

(3) Lastly, proof does not exist for faith. If your belief is associated with proof, you don't have faith, but a scientific quantitative understanding of the world which in your case has illogical and unsubstantiated conclusions. You've put the Bible in a situtation where it can be disproven scientifically because you are using it as a science book. Unfortunately for your case, the Bible is not the product of scientific method.

Read the book Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. I have more proof for my belief then you do.

 

[sojourner]

It's a moot question, because we've determined that Adam is a metaphorical character, not a factual person. Therefore, since the metaphor lives, so does Adam. Adam is now much, much older than that.

 

[Aqualung]

It's a moot question, because we've determined that Adam is a metaphorical character, not a factual person.

We have? You'll have to point me to that post where "we" figured that out.

 

[sojourner]

We have? You'll have to point me to that post where "we" figured that out.

"We" meaning reputable Biblical scholars.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"We" meaning reputable Biblical scholars.

As opposed to "they" meaning disreputable Biblical scholars. Knockout

 

[may]

Here is the verse in context:

6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
6:3 And 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.
6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

I don't see anything there to indicate that this is a reference to any other thing besides the maximum age to which a human can expect to live. Perhaps the Mormon version of the Bible differs from this. BTW this is from the King James Version.

B.

Jehovah saw how bad things were, but he gave people the chance to be saved out of it all , noah had advance warning and he did just asJehovah asked of him, he did a warning work
the "time of the end" had begun for that ungodly world of Noah’s day . God saw their wickedness and he was going to do something about it, which reminds me of today.

His allowing such an extended time period before the end of that ungodly world was very considerate. Why? Because the divine decree was issued twenty years before Noah became a father and yet it allowed for him to have three sons and for these to grow up and get married and to join their father in making due preparations for surviving the threatening deluge.—Genesis 5:32; 7:11

It was a project that would involve years of work

just think of the circumstances under which Noah carried out that assignment. Put yourself in his position. If you had been Noah or a member of his family, you would have been surrounded by the violence that was perpetrated by the Nephilim and ungodly men. You would have been directly confronted by the influence of rebellious angels. As you worked on the ark, you would have been the object of ridicule. And year after year as you warned of the coming Deluge, you would have found that the people were so wrapped up in the daily affairs of life that "they took no note"—that is, "until the flood came and swept them all away."—Matthew 24:39; Luke 17:26, 27 so 120 years later the flood did come

The flood did not come suddenly without warning. Years of time were spent building the ark, time that Noah the "preacher of righteousness" also used in warning that wicked generation. (2Pe 2:5)

The flood came in the year 2370 B.C.E., as indicated by the Bible’s detailed chronology.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Abram, I very much believe in God, but not the God of the OT, but the God as described by Christ, as shown by Christ. Man needed an explaination of were he came from, IMO, this is what he came up with. It doesn't hurt to believe it. I just don't see God that way.

How interesting is that thought. We know about the life and beliefs of Christ because of the Bible. We know from the Bible that the God Christ spoke of was the Old Testament God. Yet you seem to have invented a whole different scenario to believe in. How is this?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It's a moot question, because we've determined that Adam is a metaphorical character, not a factual person. Therefore, since the metaphor lives, so does Adam. Adam is now much, much older than that.

I find this to be hilarious. We have also found that Sojourner is a metaphorical character and not a factual person. Does this make it true?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is going off subject but I love to share the world my eye balls.
What you see in and find in science is different then what I find and see. I found lots of science that can show that the world might be young. So if in court of law and there was some doubt, there would be no case. So being that there is no case that means science has neither proved it right or wrong. To some it has become total truth because like me they want to believe so much their idea is right. Again, you either believe God or man?

Frotunately for the rest of us, in a court of law the conculsions must match the evidence. There is insurmountable scientific evidence that the earth is far older than 6,000 years. It is simply poor strategy to take scientific findings and interpret them differently from the original findings. That is, evidence used to prove an old earth can't be used to prove that the earth is young (like what you did above with light). We even have human history reaching back farther than that. You cannot produce reasonable evidence to cause doubt from your faulty and illogical interpretation of an ancient document that has nothing to do with science.

In a court of law, your irrational opinions could not be considered.

If any man wants proof that there is no God, it is me. That is why I'm here, to be there when science can explain good and bad and the origin of it. I'm a power hungry man that would love to dominate a nation, in fact would probably be a terrorist. This though, until I can prove without a shadow of a doubt there is no God and there will be no discipline for my actions I won't.

You can unpack this jibberish for me on another thread. I don't have a clue what you are saying.

Science will never find God, it can't. If God created the world he in turn created science. Therefore he is above science. Did you know that there has always been a thoery for a old earth. This has always been a question, just when the world thinks it's about to descover the truth they find something else and it all tumbles to the ground. Just because my team is not winning in the science world right now, do I change teams, or wait for the next match up?

So you must assent that even if the earth is proved young by real science, then it cannot prove that God created the world. At least we are on the same page with that.

Read the book Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. I have more proof for my belief then you do.

I've read the book. What is your point? Perhaps we can talk about specific issues in the book on another thread if you'd like.

In the mean time,

Faith that hass proof ceases to be faith. It's like taking pride in your humility. If there is proof for God, then we don't need to have faith to believe that God exists, and we are theologically disqualified for salvation according to the Bible. Salvation is by grace through faith.

Romans 8:24
For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Ephesians 2
8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Although quite impossible: If anyone can come to the knowledge of God through proofs, then such a person cannot have faith because they have seen evidence of God. Through their intellectual prowess, they attain the knowledge of God. This would mean a works-based salvation that does not exist in the New Testament.

We believe without proof. The only way to have faith is to not see anything, but such faith by no means requires that we approach a written document brainlessly and interpret it as if it were something that it is not.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As opposed to "they" meaning disreputable Biblical scholars. Knockout

Is there a historical-critical approach to Genesis 1-11 that does not interpret these chapters as myth?