DescentBB

Firewheel wrote:So does this mean that they would have eventually physically died anyway? Interesting idea, but why would the first humans mentioned in the Bible live for hundreds of years, yet degenerate down to only 70-100 years in the present if there wasn't some sort of physical decay as well?

I've always found the idea (that the decreasing lifespans in the Bible were due to some kind of physical "decay due to sin") odd. Since human longevity has actually increased considerably over the past couple hundred years, does that mean that there has been a decrease in human sin?

Firewheel wrote:The idea that death preexisted Adam makes sense in some ways, at least - such as animals designed to eat meat. It seems a bit silly to suggest that everything ate grass, until man's sin caused their teeth to change and force them to want to kill each other.

Yep, and if we think that 'no physical death' occurred before Adam and Eve, we would also have to believe that grass (a living thing) couldn't be consumed by animals, fish couldn't feed off algae, etc.

Firewheel wrote:So does this mean that they would have eventually physically died anyway?

I think so.

why would the first humans mentioned in the Bible live for hundreds of years, yet degenerate down to only 70-100 years in the present if there wasn't some sort of physical decay as well?

To turn the question around: why would the physical decay take so long to take effect? Were the first sinners less sinful than the later ones, such that the first sinners lived for hundreds of years, but the later ones lived for only fifty? Has sin decreased recently so that our lifespans are increasing? Are Americans less sinful than Africans?

We don't have a clear explanation within the Bible of exactly what the lifespans mean or why they're so long before Noah and then decrease rapidly after. But note that they don't immediately begin to decrease after Adam and Eve -- it's not as though Adam and Eve lived to be 1000, the next generation to 900, the next to 800, and so on; the pattern we see is 930 - 912 - 905 - 910 - 895 - 962 - 365 - 969 - 595 - 777 - 950 (Noah/flood) - 500 - 403 - 403 - 430 - 209 - 207 - 200 - 119 - 205. I don't know what exactly that DOES tell us... but I can say it DOES NOT fit the pattern of "increasing amounts of decay immediately following the incident with the fruit".

roid wrote:Bett, lets fly to the stars, eventually cure our mortality and become gods!

GODS! GODS I TELL YOU! MHUOAHAHAHA

We can't. Its pointless.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

roid wrote:Bett, lets fly to the stars, eventually cure our mortality and become gods!

GODS! GODS I TELL YOU! MHUOAHAHAHA

We can't. Its pointless.

Bee

Yeah, it'd be too much trouble losing faults.
Better to indulge in ignorance, it's easier.

out of curiosity, how many have read the Genesis account? Recently. Genesis chapter 1 through chapter 3?

Lothar wrote:We don't have a clear explanation within the Bible of exactly what the lifespans mean or why they're so long before Noah and then decrease rapidly after.

See Genesis 6:3

Duper wrote:

Lothar wrote:We don't have a clear explanation within the Bible of exactly what the lifespans mean or why they're so long before Noah and then decrease rapidly after.

See Genesis 6:3

In the very post you quoted, I posted the lifespans after Noah from Genesis 11. The next few: Abraham 175 (Gen25), Isaac 180 (Gen35), Jacob 147 (Gen47), and Joseph only lived to 110 (Gen50). So that leaves us with 11 of the next 12 generations AFTER Genesis 6:3 where people continued to break and even shatter the 120-year mark. Is God really that slow, that it took Him a dozen generations before He finally got lifespans down to the timespan He set? And did God just screw up with Jeanne Calment more recently?

I think it's far more likely that when God speaks of man's time as being 120 years, He's speaking of how long until the flood, rather than putting some sort of maximum on lifespans.

Who am I to answer questions that only God can give an appropriate answer? ..I'm not being snide.

When you read the text, it has two obvious possibilities... lifespans of 120 years, or 120 years until God wipes out everyone but Noah's family and starts over. We don't have any explicit confirmation of either -- there's no other passage that says \"and thusly were mans days limited to 120 years\" and points us to the answer. But, the lifespan answer brings up a lot of questions -- questions like \"why do 11 of the next 12 generations still break the 120 barrier?\", \"why have a few modern people broken the 120 barrier?\", and so on.

In general, when you're reading the Bible (or any other book) and a passage has multiple possible meanings, and one of the meanings requires you to discard, ignore, explain away, or not take seriously other parts of the book or outside evidence... that's probably not the right meaning. It's possible (and I have no doubt that, had God intended that meaning, He could explain it), but it's not something you should base a whole lot of theology on. Especially when it's only said once and never confirmed by other passages.

It reminds me of the \"good theology / bad theology\" pictures Drakona once posted:


I would classify \"lifespans are limited to 120 years because of the flood\" using the image on the right. It's not stated directly (there's more than one way to read the verse), it's never restated anywhere else, and a lot of other things (other passage in Genesis as well as a few modern people) contradict it. We have only the tiniest shred of evidence pointing toward it, and, to quote the NET Bible, \"neither the subsequent narrative nor reality favors this [interpretation].\"

Bet51987 wrote:

roid wrote:Bett, lets fly to the stars, eventually cure our mortality and become gods!

GODS! GODS I TELL YOU! MHUOAHAHAHA

We can't. Its pointless.

Bee

Can you give a definition of "pointless" without reference to the imaginary wants of a God, or our parents?

Is this not Freedom? Where what is and isn't pointless is entirely our own call.

Finally we can stop to pet the squirrels, without guilt.

Lothar wrote:...the "good theology / bad theology" pictures Drakona once posted:

Those are excellent! How did I miss them before?

Lothar wrote:I would classify "lifespans are limited to 120 years because of the flood" using the image on the right ... "neither the subsequent narrative nor reality favors this [interpretation]."

Agreed.

roid wrote:...we can stop to pet the squirrels...

I love xkcd.

Foil wrote:

Lothar wrote:...the "good theology / bad theology" pictures Drakona once posted:

Those are excellent! How did I miss them before? :D

There's a whole course that goes with them.

roid wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

roid wrote:Bett, lets fly to the stars, eventually cure our mortality and become gods!

GODS! GODS I TELL YOU! MHUOAHAHAHA

We can't. Its pointless.

Bee

Can you give a definition of "pointless" without reference to the imaginary wants of a God, or our parents?

Is this not Freedom? Where what is and isn't pointless is entirely our own call.

Finally we can stop to pet the squirrels, without guilt.

I have no imaginary wants of any God, but I do of parents. I'm just a little depressed and having a bad time breaking out of it thats all...

My life (and yours) has meaning and purpose but only at a local level. We are loved and love in return so it has meaning. Teaching someone CPR gives you purpose, but in the grand scheme of things there is no purpose or meaning and I just find it amusing that their are people who can't see beyond this Earth and to them its still the center of the universe where God, Jesus, origins, the bible, and everything else you can imagine is centered here.

That star system I mentioned is an example. There may be millions upon millions of them with oceans and beautiful sunsets, birds, etc, but the species that would have appreciated its beauty either never appeared, were killed off by the animals, or never had time to develop before the star went into its end of life expansion. Since it was born, lived, and died, and you can never get to it, what was its purpose or meaning? How can a God put something like that out there for no one to see?

The only obvious one is that those star systems are no different than this one and are merely products of a random event and that star system is as pointless as this one.

However, like I said, your life and mine may not have distant purposes, but we still like going to the mall and buying more jeans.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Since it was born, lived, and died, and you can never get to it, what was its purpose or meaning? How can a God put something like that out there for no one to see?

If God put it out there, I think you'd have to count God as being able to see it. Just because no human, Klingon, or Vorgon will ever see it doesn't mean it's purposeless or meaningless.

x2 Lothar.

A creation doesn't necesarily need to be seen by anyone other than the creator to be meaningful.

Whether it's a song I wrote and keep in my head, or a design in the sand I made as a child, even if no one else saw or heard it, it means something to me.

[Plus, I like to think that with the eternity of heaven, I will get a chance to travel through and see the rest of the created universe.]

Foil wrote:Yep, and if we think that 'no physical death' occurred before Adam and Eve, we would also have to believe that grass (a living thing) couldn't be consumed by animals, fish couldn't feed off algae, etc.

Plants don't actually die if you eat parts of them, but nonetheless, it does make a good point since there would be at least SOME physical death of cells etc by definition (and after all, we have obvious evidence that Adam and Eve could eat fruit, which is much the same thing.)

That and working out exactly how carnivorous animals sans actually being carnivores makes any sense is quite a good case for considering alternatives.

Bet51987 wrote:I have no imaginary wants of any God, but I do of parents. I'm just a little depressed and having a bad time breaking out of it thats all...

i think i understand, i'm experiencing that same fall from grace, with associated family fallout.

Bet51987 wrote:My life (and yours) has meaning and purpose but only at a local level. We are loved and love in return so it has meaning. Teaching someone CPR gives you purpose, but in the grand scheme of things there is no purpose or meaning and I just find it amusing that their are people who can't see beyond this Earth and to them its still the center of the universe where God, Jesus, origins, the bible, and everything else you can imagine is centered here.

That star system I mentioned is an example. There may be millions upon millions of them with oceans and beautiful sunsets, birds, etc, but the species that would have appreciated its beauty either never appeared, were killed off by the animals, or never had time to develop before the star went into its end of life expansion. Since it was born, lived, and died, and you can never get to it, what was its purpose or meaning? How can a God put something like that out there for no one to see?

The only obvious one is that those star systems are no different than this one and are merely products of a random event and that star system is as pointless as this one.
...

ya. So if that's pointless... and everything is pointless. It begs the thought of what, ever, had a point? And therefore... why do we even have the expression "pointless" if we know nothing else?

The very expression "pointless" should not exist if it weren't for ppl making up grand earth-centric fables about the nature of the universe.

This is probabaly rather abstract, i'm sorry. I'm trying to say is that the "pointlessness" of the universe and everything should not be feared but embraced! Afterall that's reality, we really shouldn't have believed any different (and i'm embarased i ever did). But since we DID used to believe different, it's kinda like a healing process to be introduced to ACTUAL reality. It's hard to imagine some ppl were born here (reality) and never experienced the self-importance of the God delusion, i wonder what that's like.

That's how I grew up, roid. You see the world a completely different way, and usually much more clearly.

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Since it was born, lived, and died, and you can never get to it, what was its purpose or meaning? How can a God put something like that out there for no one to see?

If God put it out there, I think you'd have to count God as being able to see it. Just because no human, Klingon, or Vorgon will ever see it doesn't mean it's purposeless or meaningless.

Thats just an assumption based on religion and has only mental value for the person who needs it. I'm not ridiculing you, just pointing out that not everyone needs a placebo.

It just doesn't make sense that a God, so centered on this Earth, would need billions and billions of systems like I explained just for his amusement alone.

Roid, its not pointless as long as your alive and having fun... and theirs a mall close by.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:It just doesn't make sense that a God, so centered on this Earth...

Who ever said God is "centered on this Earth"?

God's messages to people on this Earth tend to be centered on Him and us and this planet. We have a bit of a sampling bias there. He doesn't tell us about Pluto, Andromeda, or bacteria, not because He doesn't care about those things, but because they aren't particularly important in terms of our relationship with Him. The earth-centeredness of the message is because of US, not because of Him.

Bet51987 wrote:It just doesn't make sense that a God, so centered on this Earth, would need billions and billions of systems like I explained just for his amusement alone.

Why would it have to be because God "needed" it for amusement?

The way I see it, creation as a whole (including the universe that's beyond our ability to see) is a reflection of God's infinite creativity.

By analogy, if you wrote a song that you never sang for anyone, I would think it comes out of a sense of personal expression, rather than boredom or a need for self-entertainment.

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:It just doesn't make sense that a God, so centered on this Earth...

Who ever said God is "centered on this Earth"?

God's messages to people on this Earth tend to be centered on Him and us and this planet. We have a bit of a sampling bias there. He doesn't tell us about Pluto, Andromeda, or bacteria, not because He doesn't care about those things, but because they aren't particularly important in terms of our relationship with Him. The earth-centeredness of the message is because of US, not because of Him.

Pluto isn't mentioned because when the man called Jesus walked the Earth, he knew nothing of Pluto or the star systems.

It was man who reinterpreted the bible to include those items as they were being found.... a form of theistic evolution. There is nothing wrong with that and I accept it but I just don't like the implication that it was always known.

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate the thought of a God and still tell little kids there is one but for myself, I just rather view the universe as it really is and with a lot of people its always been God vs Randomness.

Foil, if I wrote a song that no one saw, sang a song that no one heard, then no one would know, but the universe isn't hidden. I see it.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:Pluto isn't mentioned because when the man called Jesus walked the Earth, he knew nothing of Pluto or the star systems.

It was man who reinterpreted the bible to include those items as they were being found...

To my knowledge, nobody* has ever reinterpreted the Bible to include Pluto. There's no reason to, just like there's no reason to reinterpret the Bible to include bacteria or Vorgons. Those things simply aren't relevant to the point the Bible is making.

the universe isn't hidden. I see it.

Wasn't your original objection "there's a lot of beautiful stuff we'll never see, and it doesn't make sense for God to hide it"? Are you withdrawing that objection?



* by which I mean "nobody credible". There are, of course, nutjobs who try to turn the Bible into some sort of space opera and/or biology textbook.

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Pluto isn't mentioned because when the man called Jesus walked the Earth, he knew nothing of Pluto or the star systems.

It was man who reinterpreted the bible to include those items as they were being found...

To my knowledge, nobody* has ever reinterpreted the Bible to include Pluto. There's no reason to, just like there's no reason to reinterpret the Bible to include bacteria or Vorgons. Those things simply aren't relevant to the point the Bible is making.

the universe isn't hidden. I see it.

Wasn't your original objection "there's a lot of beautiful stuff we'll never see, and it doesn't make sense for God to hide it"? Are you withdrawing that objection?



* by which I mean "nobody credible". There are, of course, nutjobs who try to turn the Bible into some sort of space opera and/or biology textbook.

I beg to differ but the bibles meanings have continuously evolved to keep up with present day thinking and I have not withdrawn anything. I still object to the implication from some religious groups that the bible always included those star systems.

If there was a God then I fail to see the point of that star system I mentioned, just as I fail to see the reason that a God who creates a mouse will also create a cat to kill it.

When you look at the universe, you see the work of God. When I look at the universe, I see the product of the big bang with totally random events taking place just as they take place on Earth. Its like throwing a hundred pairs of dice and whatever numbers come up are attributed to God.

I've struggled with this all my life and my frustrations will not allow the totally random events in every single thing I see, hear, and touch, whether its in deep space or here on earth to coexist with a God who planned all these random events. Its just not logical.

Again, I respect the people I see in church who pray because it gives them some hope which in a way makes sense even if I consider it a placebo. I just have no respect for those who try to explain God scientifically by changing the meanings of the bible.

I seem to be derailing this thread so I better stop.

Bettina

It's not nearly as far off as it could be... we're still discussing \"origins\", and how a supernatural Creator factors in (or doesn't).

Lothar wrote:God intended for all things on this earth to be temporary, which makes death entirely sensible. He intended this to be a short-term lodging to prepare us to live with Him.

So why do you assume God intended from the beginning that everything on earth would be temporary?

Oh boy, more thoughts!

Death may have been fine prior to the Fall... in fact, it seems reasonable enough from Foil and the other's explanations. But what about disease and natural disasters? Did these emerge only after mankind sinned, or are they not considered evil/sinful as well? And what about cancer, etc.?

I'm also curious about anyone giving an explanation for why people would have lived so much longer back in early human history. Of course, I'm sure everyone is done with this topic and my questions will just end up floating in the air.

Firewheel wrote:I'm also curious about anyone giving an explanation for why people would have lived so much longer back in early human history.

I don't think they did. It's all in how you read the genealogies. Any time genealogies become the linchpin to support a certain idea, I'd keep in mind 1 Timothy 1:3-4 and Titus 3:9 -- biblical genealogies are there for a reason, but there's a danger in becoming preoccupied with them.

Ancient genealogies aren't equivalent to modern family trees. For one thing, they typically had symbolic or exaggerated numbers. Other genealogies outside of the Bible also used exaggerated ages -- sometimes even ages of tens of thousands of years! Often this was used to show the importance of the individual.

Another difference is that ancient genealogies often included legendary characters, and their point was to provide continuity with the past. If a king followed the teachings of a long-departed sage, or the example of a hero in a legendary story, chances are those people would be included in their genealogy. Genealogies were about tracing who made someone (or a people) who they were, and that wasn't limited to who provided their genes.

So, I expect Genesis 5 cobbles together many of the ancient people who survived through legends and were deemed important to the community that compiled it. Another purpose of it, I suspect, was the repeated refrain of "and he died", which hammered home the effects of the previous stories.