men living beyond 200 years, fiction? or bad interpretation?

[outhouse]

I don't think it's either. The Bible says people lived that long, so I believe it.
Notice that people stopped living extremely long lives after the flood. Perhaps if the flood (and rain, and the resultant environmental effects of these) never happened then people be living for hundreds of years now. (Edit: except for Ps 90.)


That's my reality of it anyway.

A few problems with this.

There never was a global flood
there is no evidence in any bone fragments that show this

really this isnt up for debate, i do find it sad people cannot see through this, and people choose a 3000 year old book mostly fiction over history and science and reality.

 

[wordmagnifiedabovenames]

Whether the account of the flood in Genesis is true or not, the Bible still says that certain people lived for several hundred years, so I still believe it.

I don't think it's misinterpretation, the Hebrew used clearly indicates that theys people lived for hundreds of years.

If someone doesn't believe the Bible is truth and there is no misinterpretation, then it must be fiction. However, if it is truth then it's easy to interpret it literally and say that people (possibly limited to the "godly" line, or the longevity could have been more widespread) lived a long time for some reason, whether due to environmental factors which changed with the flood, or some divine intervention that (by today's standards) prolonged their lives what whatever reason, or both.

 

[outhouse]

thats fine you have your belief

 

[dmgdnooc]

A few problems with this.

There never was a global flood
there is no evidence in any bone fragments that show this

really this isnt up for debate, i do find it sad people cannot see through this, and people choose a 3000 year old book mostly fiction over history and science and reality.

My post #19 has not been addressed, you are quick to change the subject.
　
As regards the OP, I think it is pertinent to note that an ordinary, run of the mill, everyday garden variety, nothing special, average Joe deckhand on an ancient greek trireme was a superior rower to our modern Olympic athletes.
　
And that Alexander could conquer half a world with soldiers that we would have repatriated out of service years beforehand and never expected them (even in youth) to walk, toting their gear, and fight their way from Macedon to Egypt and from there to central Asia and India and back again.
　
I think that the lifespan that the ancients expected (barring disease or injury) should be considered, 70 to 100 seems to be the recorded range.
　
We should take particular note that the increase in longevity experienced over the past 200 years graphs as a constant linear progression that shows no real sign of levelling out. And gives every indication that the original genetic potential lifespan of human beings will not soon be reached.
And consider that the observed rise begins from an all-time low life expectancy of 25 years, Ptolemaic life expectancy was in the mid 50s.
　
You could maybe also consider that the only persons mentioned as living beyond 200 years are those from early Genesis, which is recognised (by the vast majority) as being a later record of an oral tradition.
Moses' 120 years is not beyond the realms of possibility, even by the standards of today.
　
You keep asserting that 'people lived less back then not more', 'they didnt live as long' but what of people like Antigonus. How many moderns could ride into battle in their 80s?

That they were more prone to disease and injury is certain, but if they could avoid these then their superior strength, overall fitness, natural diet and active lifestyle gave them advantages that we no longer have.
　
So, have a go at addressing these thoughts on the OP.

 

[kylixguru]

There are many examples of humanity living beyond 200 years in the OT

Im not sure if it is fiction or interpretation errors.

Ive heard a few on the interpretation side or confusion after oral tradition.

Most say its just fiction because ancient hebrews didnt know any better.

whats the reality of it????? we know people didnt live that long ever!

Pre-Abrahamic information is in a shifted context. Our pre-history isn't an account of single individuals. Rather, what is referred to as individuals are in fact societal bodies of individuals. Adam was a group of people. Eve was a group of people. Cain was a group of people. Abel was a group of people. Seth was a group of people. Noah was a group of people. The "creatures" that boarded the "ark" were various classes of people. The "floods" were "false traditions and ideologies of men". Etc. There is a whole different metaphoric context for prediluvial holy writ.

This is how Adam could have Eve pulled from his side and how she would be "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh". Their societal bodies were composed of individuals who were members of each body.

Having a lifespan of neary 1,000 years is actually the lifespan of a civilization gathered around a particular social ideal or vision.

ADD: I should have explicitly said my answer was #2 and then proceeded to give this answer. I guess I assumed people would be able to gather I was choosing the 2nd option. Pardon me.

 

[kylixguru]

understood

im just after whether its translation error or fiction

Neither, you just don't know how to read it.

ADD: Here is where things went sideways. You said "translation" rather than "interpretation" here.

 

[outhouse]

My post #19 has not been addressed, you are quick to change the subject.

you didnt address anything that has to do with this post. that is why it is ignored.

the most healthy people are still not living past 120, in the past life spans were shorter. Not longer. this is a fact.

I think it is pertinent to note

its not actually

You keep asserting that 'people lived less back then not more', 'they didnt live as long' but what of people like Antigonus. How many moderns could ride into battle in their 80s?

he was an exception due the fact he was rich. he did not represent the average population and you know it. At 81 when he died with a spear tells me he was slow and should have stayed home that day lol

we had jack lalane, id put jack uop against antigonus any day. we have allot of tough old birds, you just dont know any. I know allot.

if they could avoid these then their superior strength, overall fitness, natural diet and active lifestyle gave them advantages that we no longer have.
　

they did not have superior strength as a whole, your picking a handfull of storys and using these for the general population.


NOW with all said and done I think you believe the same as me. The OT ages are full of beans.

so in your opinon is it error or interpretation

 

[outhouse]

Neither, you just don't know how to read it.

 

[outhouse]

Pre-Abrahamic information is in a shifted context. Our pre-history isn't an account of single individuals. Rather, what is referred to as individuals are in fact societal bodies of individuals. Adam was a group of people. Eve was a group of people. Cain was a group of people. Abel was a group of people. Seth was a group of people. Noah was a group of people. The "creatures" that boarded the "ark" were various classes of people. The "floods" were "false traditions and ideologies of men". Etc. There is a whole different metaphoric context for prediluvial holy writ.

This is how Adam could have Eve pulled from his side and how she would be "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh". Their societal bodies were composed of individuals who were members of each body.

Having a lifespan of neary 1,000 years is actually the lifespan of a civilization gathered around a particular social ideal or vision.

you so lost its not funny.

you dont merit a rational responce with your own personal interpretation no one else follows

 

[Rakhel]

I am not going to fact or fiction.
What I am going to say is that the probability is high that those who wrote the the bible didn't measure time the way we do today.

 

[outhouse]

I am not going to fact or fiction.
What I am going to say is that the probability is high that those who wrote the the bible didn't measure time the way we do today.

fair enough and rational

interpretation then.?

 

[Rakhel]

fair enough and rational

interpretation then.?

Possible but I can't say for sure.

 

[kylixguru]

you so lost its not funny.

you dont merit a rational responce with your own personal interpretation no one else follows

You can't handle the truth.

My interpretation is NOT personal. I am applying metaphors that are explicitly established in the text itself. Thus, I am allowing the Bible to interpret itself. It may look difficult at first but once your mind grasps the metaphors what comes out the other side of the decoder is plain, simple, practical information.

What is difficult and not deserving of a rational response, but I proffer one anyway because I'm a generous soul, is the floundering around that you and those you mock seem to have a propensity to do without admitting at the same time you just might not know what you are talking about to start with.

 

[dmgdnooc]

you didnt address anything that has to do with this post. that is why it is ignored.

the most healthy people are still not living past 120, in the past life spans were shorter. Not longer. this is a fact.

its not actually


he was an exception due the fact he was rich. he did not represent the average population and you know it. At 81 when he died with a spear tells me he was slow and should have stayed home that day lol

we had jack lalane, id put jack uop against antigonus any day. we have allot of tough old birds, you just dont know any. I know allot.


they did not have superior strength as a whole, your picking a handfull of storys and using these for the general population.


NOW with all said and done I think you believe the same as me. The OT ages are full of beans.

so in your opinon is it error or interpretation

You're exaggerating.
There are not 'many examples'; the very few examples of ages greater than 200 years are confined to early Genesis.
　
Early Genesis is to be read as being literal but understood as being allegorical.
The lists of names and ages I take, most possibly, to represent Tribal Patronymic designations and the periods of that Tribe's dominance.
The full and exact meanings of the oral traditions of early Genesis are lost to me.
So I tend to go with jbug, that you don't know how to read it; with the rider that I know how to read it but still don't know what it means.
　
Early Genesis is most definitely not just fiction, there is too much that can be read from it that is clear and true and beyond the capabilities of men (of that time) to deduce.
　
That you require an oral tradition to remain wholly factual over hundreds of years of transmission shows either naivete or malice.
Which is it?
　
It is hypocritical to say that my citations concerning ordinary men, sailors and soldiers, of ancient times is not pertinent and then falsely criticise me for not citing from the 'general population'. Do you expect to be taken seriously?
　
I do not accept that Antigonus was an exception because of his wealth; I think it far more likely that he was lucky, having avoided mortal disease and injury.
And the story of Mr LaLanne 'the apostle of fitness' would also tend to support the things that I say about a physically oriented life producing fit and long-lived persons.
　
The fact is that the ancients were stronger than we.
Apply your reasoning to the fact that the ancients led an active, lifting, toting, running, jumping, physical life while we sit at desks and on machines and have all manner of devices to guard us from exertion.
A talent, 30kgs, was the weight of goods that a man was expected to be able to transport on his back for a full days trek; 15kg was the maximum lawful lift in most places that I worked and it was never expected to be carried far.
'As a class we are in fact the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo Sapiens to ever walk the planet.'
Modern man a wimp: anthropologist | Manthropology | Peter McAllister
　
You also ignore the expectations of the ancients themselves and the recent scientific findings regarding the current trends in longevity.
Your unsupported assertion that 'past life spans were shorter' can only be founded on average age at death not the maximum of the range. Which side-steps the fact that the maximum is what is being discussed in relation to the later portions of the OT and the very few centenarians mentioned there.
　
I most definitely do not think that the 'OT ages are full of beans' I don't even think that the early Genesis ages are 'full of beans'.

 

[outhouse]

Thats a long winded post that says nothing really, maybe that you dont like my view.

Funny thing is you dont really disagree with me.

we both admit man didnt live to 200 or more
we both admit there is interpretation differences

I only admit there is some fiction involved sinse we know they wrote with hugae amounts of fiction.

why is it so hard for you to simply say, its interpretation if that is your stance

 

[outhouse]

You can't handle the truth.

My interpretation is NOT personal. I am applying metaphors that are explicitly established in the text itself. Thus, I am allowing the Bible to interpret itself. It may look difficult at first but once your mind grasps the metaphors what comes out the other side of the decoder is plain, simple, practical information.

What is difficult and not deserving of a rational response, but I proffer one anyway because I'm a generous soul, is the floundering around that you and those you mock seem to have a propensity to do without admitting at the same time you just might not know what you are talking about to start with.

theres only 3 answers here

#1 fiction
#2 interpretation error
#3 man lived to 900+ years

we know man doesnt and has never lived past the average 120

so is it #1 or #2

 

[kylixguru]

theres only 3 answers here

#1 fiction
#2 interpretation error
#3 man lived to 900+ years

we know man doesnt and has never lived past the average 120

so is it #1 or #2

Don't you mean translation error for #2?

I already said you don't know how to interpret it. It's that simple.

Those ages are lifespans of particular societal bodies. Think dynasty if that helps.

 

[outhouse]

Don't you mean translation error for #2?

I already said you don't know how to interpret it. It's that simple.

Those ages are lifespans of particular societal bodies. Think dynasty if that helps.

your alone in your view. if you think im wrong then please proved evidence that mainstream belief follows yours. If true it should be easy. LOL good luck with that

the OT by the people who wrote it state " it is ment to be read allegorically.

you choose to use imagine and claim everyone else is wrong.

your personaly interpretation does not count

 

[esmith]

It seems that some people have a convoluted interpretation of the bible. They seem to ascribe to a more hidden meaning than what, in my opinion, the original story teller was attempting to convey to their audience. I see the bible as a means of, in some cases, entertainment; where people would gather after “a hard day of work” whether it was shepherds and their families in the fields or people in small city enclaves listing to an orator tell an entertaining story. These stories could also be of a historical or theological nature. These were simple people, uneducated in the modern philosophy; just attempting to survive. They didn’t sit around contemplating if the story had a deeper meaning. The stories were of an oral-aural nature, requiring the listener to have an “input” to the story; they couldn’t turn pages back to “re-read” as we can. These stories were not intended for modern man and should not be interpreted using assumptions that have been influenced by knowledge beyond the date of the stories or current beliefs.

 

[kylixguru]

your alone in your view.

That is of no concern to me.

if you think im wrong then please proved evidence that mainstream belief follows yours.

I could care less what the mainstream thinks. I deliberatly flushed everything down the toilet that I was ever taught because the mainstream hardly has a clue, much less any answers.

If true it should be easy. LOL good luck with that

It actually is quite easy. It's only challenge is everybody is off in la-la land and likely won't give it the time of day long enough to see how simple and practical it all is.

the OT by the people who wrote it state " it is ment to be read allegorically.

Of course it is metaphoric, they put the keys to unlock the metaphors in it. They didn't say everyone has license to impose their own nonsensical personal interpretations on it.

you choose to use imagine and claim everyone else is wrong.

I simply came to realize nobody around here (generally speaking) seems to know their kiester from a hole in the ground. I also came to realize I was one of them. Yes, it sucked and it was humiliating. But, I accepted it. In so doing, I asked God to show me His ways and to see things from His perspective. I have found that God is indeed most gracious and upbraids not the truly penitent and humble inquirer of Him. If anyone ever lacked wisdom, it was I. Praise be to God He continues to reveal His mysteries to my understanding.

It gives me a hope that perhaps I can participate in bringing in a measure of peace when all of the squabbling factions who ALL disagree with me can come to realize I have stumbled upon the tip of an iceberg of information upon which we ALL can agree upon.

your personaly interpretation does not count

It is offered none the less. I don't see it having any less potential to contribute than your opinions.