Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help!
  Advanced
Register  |  Log in  
   Ask    
 Answer  
  Help  

Ask QuestionsprogressAnswer QuestionsprogressBuild ReputationprogressBecome an Expert
 
Free Answers in 3 Easy Steps

Register Now
3 Steps

At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to:
  • Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics.
  • Accept money for answers that you provide.
  • Communicate privately with other members (PM).
  • See fewer ads.

Home > Society & Culture > Religion > Other Religion   »   Lifespans in Genesis (Bere****)

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Question
 
 
Old Mar 28, 2006, 08:27 PM
orange
Ultra Member
orange is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,365
orange See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.orange See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Lifespans in Genesis (Bere****)

At synagogue recently there was a reading from the Torah about the age of Noah when he died. It said that he lived to be 950 years old. Afterwards I read some other passages from Genesis and lots of other people had super long lives, too.

So:

Did people just live longer then? or,
Did they use a different calendar for years? or,
Was it not meant to be taken literally? or,
Was it maybe even gematriya (code)?

I realize there are probably a lot of differing opinions but I'm very interested to hear about this, thanks.

Err the Board has censored the Hebrew name for Genesis, Bere****, LOL!! It's spelled B-e-r-e-s-h-i-t, and roughly pronounced as "bear-ray-sheet", in case anyone is interested.

Reply With Quote
 
     

Answers
 
 
Old Apr 1, 2006, 03:44 AM   #21  
Nez
Senior Member
Nez is offline
 
Nez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 567
Nez See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
I'm not totally convinced about the ozone.Volcanoes still exploded,methane swamps,animals,etc.
Personally I do not believe that the human body is designed to live beyond a certain age.Cell degregation being the main concern.Yes we are livng in the so-called modern age,with pollution,stress,and other variables.I tend to agree with Style,and Scott,in that how people "used" the calender count,might have been different.Still,as Joe said,living to 900 might be nice,if I could avoid the boredom.

Comments on this post
orange agrees: Yes cell degeneration is a very good point!
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Apr 1, 2006, 03:49 AM   #22  
Computer Expert
ScottGem is online now
 
ScottGem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: LI, NY - USA
Posts: 25,179
ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Pay to call ScottGem for advice ($.75/min)
Call ScottGem via Skype™
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nez
I'm not totally convinced about the ozone.Volcanoes still exploded,methane swamps,animals,etc.
Personally I do not believe that the human body is designed to live beyond a certain age.Cell degregation being the main concern.Yes we are livng in the so-called modern age,with pollution,stress,and other variables.I tend to agree with Style,and Scott,in that how people "used" the calender count,might have been different.Still,as Joe said,living to 900 might be nice,if I could avoid the boredom.
I think Nez's point about the cell degradation is very important. That aging occurs and cells degrade is a fact of physical law. It can be measured. While it might vary from organism to organism, there is an range. Given that scientific fact, I think it makes more sense that ways of measuring time have changed.

Comments on this post
Jesushelper76 agrees: That makes the most sense to me as well. The way they recorded time, calander differences had to do with why it appears that people lived a very long time in the bible days.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Apr 1, 2006, 08:35 AM   #23  
Ultra Member
orange is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,365
orange See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.orange See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Yeah I agree with the cell degeneration theory as well. My first degree was in Zoology, so I guess I should be defending this more!! Still, the other theories are intriguing to me, from the point of view of someone who loves science fiction!

I wondered about them using a different calendar or a different definition of years, but I can't seem to find any theories on that, and I've done a lot of searching online. If anyone finds anything please post it here, as I am fascinated by calendars. Obviously they would not have used the Jewish calendar, as that was not used until much later, and Noah wasn't a Jew anyways. I would think, though, that they would use approximately the same year as we do now. Ancient peoples such as the Sumerians were able to measure the seasons and years in quite sophisticated ways. But I guess Noah was even before them, so who knows.

I did find another modern theory which I thought was interesting and made some sense. Appparently the story of Noah is very similar to (and some say is derived from) a story in early Mesopotamian mythology, about a man called Gilgamesh. Apparently Gilgamesh survived a great flood, and as a reward from the gods, was granted immortality. The immortality part would explain Noah's extremely long life.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Apr 1, 2006, 10:03 AM   #24  
Senior Member
DrJizzle is offline
 
DrJizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NorCal
Posts: 923
DrJizzle See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.DrJizzle See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.DrJizzle See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Hmmmm.... Im having a hard time buying the calendar difference. That is A LOT of difference. How could their calendar year be 1/10 less than ours? Even the old Hebrew Calendar had 12 months of 30 days. It was all lunar based back... so I could see if they counted a year as a full lunar cycle (which would put ages between 30-75 or so) but that seems ridiculous to think that the verbage was confused so quickly thru time. I dont know how far back the Hebrew Calendar goes but it definitely dated back well into the Old Testament.

Cell degeneration is a good point... but that could also be contributed to the the atmoshperic makeup. Everything is subject to its environment and if our environment was severly different, isnt easily possible that we could be living considerable longer, or shorter, lives??
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Apr 1, 2006, 03:01 PM   #25  
Computer Expert
ScottGem is online now
 
ScottGem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: LI, NY - USA
Posts: 25,179
ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.ScottGem See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Pay to call ScottGem for advice ($.75/min)
Call ScottGem via Skype™
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
Hmmmm.... Im having a hard time buying the calendar difference. That is A LOT of difference. How could their calendar year be 1/10 less than ours? Even the old Hebrew Calendar had 12 months of 30 days. It was all lunar based back... so I could see if they counted a year as a full lunar cycle (which would put ages between 30-75 or so) but that seems ridiculous to think that the verbage was confused so quickly thru time. I dont know how far back the Hebrew Calendar goes but it definitely dated back well into the Old Testament.

Cell degeneration is a good point... but that could also be contributed to the the atmoshperic makeup. Everything is subject to its environment and if our environment was severly different, isnt easily possible that we could be living considerable longer, or shorter, lives??
The Hebrew Calendar is in year 5766. I can understand what you are saying, but there is still no clue how they did things. Did they understand lunar phases, season changes, the orbit around the Sun? We really have no idea, maybe their years were one lunar month.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Apr 1, 2006, 04:28 PM   #26  
Ultra Member
orange is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,365
orange See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.orange See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
A year in the Hebrew calendar (which is a lunar-solar calendar) is approximately the same length as a year in the Gregorian calendar. There are 12 "regular" months and one extra "leap" month used every few years. All of the months are 29 or 30 days long. So a person's age according to the Hebrew calendar would not be very different than that of someone measuring their age in our calendar. It certainly wouldn't be a difference of several hundred years.

If we used the month as year theory, the people mentioned in Genesis 5 would have lived fairly normal lifespans. For example, Adam 77 years, his son Seth, 76 years, his descendents Enosh and Jared 75 and 80 years respectively, and Noah would have lived 79 years. However, this only works in early Genesis. By the time we get to Abraham, if we continue with the lunar month as a year, Abraham would only have lived to be 14 lol. But it seems to make sense for Genesis 5 anyways!

Actually I think someone could do a whole doctoral thesis on this topic!!
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Apr 3, 2006, 10:44 PM   #27  
-
Starman is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,352
Starman See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Starman See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
The lifespans mentioned in Genesis are pitiful in comparison to the eternity that Adam and Eve were designed to live. The reason that these lifespans seem great to us is because we have slipped even further down the physical deterioration continuum since then.

Notice also how quickly the lifespans dropped after the Noachian Flood.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Apr 4, 2006, 08:47 AM   #28  
New Member
ttzippe85 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 13
ttzippe85 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
The andeluvian people (pre-flood) were bigger in stature and intelligence. They also lived much longer than we do. However this intelligence and long life span enabled the unrighteous to do much more evil in their lifetime.This is one of the reasons why God allowed Noah to eat meat on the ark. The eating of meat has deteriorated the condition of man and shortened our lifespan.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Apr 4, 2006, 09:13 AM   #29  
Ultra Member
NeedKarma is offline
 
NeedKarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Online
Posts: 6,221
NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.NeedKarma See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttzippe85
The eating of meat has deteriorated the condition of man and shortened our lifespan.
On the contrary - the eating of meat has allowed man to survive. What about all the other meat eating animals? Are they doomed too? I don't think so. Your rhetoric is faulty.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Apr 4, 2006, 12:58 PM   #30  
Ultra Member
orange is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,365
orange See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.orange See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttzippe85
The eating of meat has deteriorated the condition of man and shortened our lifespan.
What about the Inuit and Yupik peoples of Canada, Alaska and Russia? They've eaten nothing but meat for at least 5000 years, and they only started getting sick when the Europeans brought them alcohol and various diseases such as smallpox.
  Reply With Quote
 
     


Thread Tools
Display Modes

 
Similar Sponsors




Copyright ©2003 - 2007, Ask Me Help Desk.
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:09 PM.