Any proof that Adam and other early people can live a few hundreds years old?

[LayHong_Loves_Christ]

Any proof that Adam and other early people can live a few hundred years old?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Any proof that Adam and other early people can live a few hundred years old?

Early man (Adam) would have had a much lower telomere degradation rate and shortening as well as a lower mutation rate

 

[LayHong_Loves_Christ]

I mean proof. Not just theory.

 

[AlexB23]

I mean proof. Not just theory.

There is none, just faith.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Any proof that Adam and other early people can live a few hundred years old?

Yea, the word of God.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I mean proof. Not just theory.

it is called science

 

[trophy33]

No. From a scientific standpoint, there is no evidence to support the notion that humans ever lived for several hundred years.

For example, excavations at Jericho reveal that humans occupied the city as far back as 9000 B.C. and more than five hundred tombs have been uncovered. The ages at death of the skeletal remains that have been discovered are consistent with normal human lifespans and are at odds with any notion that humans were living for hundreds of years.

External evidence from burials of all periods all over the biblical world and beyond would indicate that most people died in their sixties or seventies

“Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old?” (Gn 17:17)

Did People Once Live For Hundreds of Years? Evaluating the Long Life-Spans of Genesis 5 & 11 - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar

I do not believe this evidence to be decisive in favor of a non-literalist interpretation of those ages, but it does call for caution against dogmatism in reading the ages given in the Biblical genealogies literally.

jonathanmclatchie.com

 

[LayHong_Loves_Christ]

How can the Bible lie on this matter?

 

[trophy33]

How can the Bible lie on this matter?

Its not a lie, because both the authors and the original audience knew it is not literal. Exaggerated, symbolic ages and mythical genealogies were common in the ancient writings, its not a special biblical thing.

For example, the Sumerian King List:

After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridu. In Eridu, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alaljar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridug fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira...

Or, Manetho's "Aegyptiaca:

"Hephaestus (Ptah) was king for 9,000 years...
After the reign of the gods, the demigods and spirits of the dead reigned for 5,813 years. Then came the reign of mortal kings, beginning with Menes."

 

[OnePlanPeopleDestiny]

The Word of God is proof enough.

 

[trophy33]

The Word of God is proof enough.

You mean Jesus? How?

 

[OnePlanPeopleDestiny]

You mean Jesus? How?

Well, Jesus is the Word made flesh. My prior note, by "Word" I meant the Theopneustos words contained in the Bible.

 

[trophy33]

Well, Jesus is the Word made flesh. My prior note, by "Word" I meant the Theopneustos words contained in the Bible.

How do you know that the ages in the genealogies are "theopneustos"? And what would that mean, exactly? A supernatural dictation?

 

[OnePlanPeopleDestiny]

How do you know that the ages in the genealogies are "theopneustos"? And what would that mean, exactly? A supernatural dictation?

I trust scripture because it is the Word of God, and all scripture is Theopneustos (God-breathed). 2 Timothy 3:16. Theopneustos means that scripture, though written by man, was given to the prophets and apostles, directly by God. Just as God through the Holy Spirit gives men words to speak, He gave the prophets and apostles words to write, and they wrote that which God had given them. That is Theopneustos.

 

[trophy33]

I trust scripture because it is the Word of God, and all scripture is Theopneustos (God-breathed). 2 Timothy 3:16. Theopneustos means that scripture, though written by man, was given to the prophets and apostles, directly by God. Just as God through the Holy Spirit gives men words to speak, He gave the prophets and apostles words to write, and they wrote that which God had given them. That is Theopneustos.

I guess I understand what you believe, I am just curious how you are reasoning for that.

The textual details that are obviously irrelevant for Christianity, like the age numbers - why should they be more inspired than for example Paul's notes about his cloak he forgot in some place? How does the age of 969 make you more godly than for example 968? What would such "error" change in your life?

If these places influence nothing, why would God need to literally inspire them "word for word"?

 

[public hermit]

How can the Bible lie on this matter?

It's only a lie if you assume the intention is to mislead. There are other options available. The ages could be a literary device, perhaps a metaphor for greatness or rightness. Or, they could be legend. There's probably other ways to make sense of them if one looks. This is why assuming a literal reading must be the only way is problematic. It can go against good reason and evidence and, thereby, create doubt, which is a shame if it wasn't meant to be read literally.

That being said, could it be true these persons lived for hundreds of years? Sure, it's not impossible. It seems unlikely, but not strictly impossible. There's just no way to know given the information we have.

So, is the answer, then, to take it on faith that it's a historical fact they lived hundreds of years? I'm not sure it is. Let's assume one takes it on faith that the ages given of these persons recount historical fact. Okay, what now? What has one gained in believing that?

I submit the only real value in the given ages is whatever spiritual importance they carry. In other words, what does it mean? Take away the meaning, and it's a mere fact. Not all spiritual meanings must be anchored in fact; sometimes metaphor and symbol can do all the heavy lifting. The idea that one must take all historical reports in the Bible as fact misses the point of a spiritual text.

 

[OnePlanPeopleDestiny]

I guess I understand what you believe, I am just curious how you are reasoning for that.

The textual details that are obviously irrelevant for Christianity, like the age numbers - why should they be more inspired than for example Paul's notes about his cloak he forgot in some place? How does the age of 969 make you more godly than for example 968? What would such "error" changed in your life?

If these places influence nothing, why would God need to literally inspire them "word for word"?

Would the statue of David have been any less, or any more, magnificent had Michelangelo made David's hair an inch longer?

God is sovereign. This means that God, and God alone, decided the words HE wanted the writers to pen. The writers simply obeyed the Lord.

 

[trophy33]

Would the statue of David have been any less, or any more, magnificent had Michelangelo made David's hair an inch longer?

God is sovereign. This means that God, and God alone, decided the words HE wanted the writers to pen. The writers simply obeyed the Lord.

If God was deciding the specific words for the writers to pen, why are there so many contradictions and differences between Gospels having different human authors? Even such prominent texts like the Our Father prayer or divorce instructions have different versions in different gospels.

Would you propose that God inspired ancient Hebrew genealogies more precisely than the accounts of the words of the Son of God? Reason seems to suggest the the Gospels are the top of the biblical inspiration and everything else will be lower. If there is so much precision lost in the Gospels, how much more in the places like Genesis narratives?

 

[OnePlanPeopleDestiny]

If God was deciding the specific words for the writers to pen, why are there so many contradictions and differences between Gospels having different human authors? Even such prominent texts like the Our Father prayer or divorce instructions have different versions in different gospels.

Would you propose that God inspired ancient Hebrew genealogies more precisely than the accounts of the words of the Son of God? Reason seems to suggest the the Gospels are the top of the biblical inspiration and everything else will be lower. If there is so much precision lost in the Gospels, how much more in the places like Genesis narratives?

I see no contradictions. Show me.

 

[Ted-01]

I trust scripture because it is the Word of God, and all scripture is Theopneustos (God-breathed). 2 Timothy 3:16. Theopneustos means that scripture, though written by man, was given to the prophets and apostles, directly by God. Just as God through the Holy Spirit gives men words to speak, He gave the prophets and apostles words to write, and they wrote that which God had given them. That is Theopneustos.

Awesome thought process on your behalf!
The way that I see things, there's been a resurgence of the notion that God absolutely did not, in any way speak to people at a personal level (e.g. the prophets). Nor did He "supernatural" inspire/direct the other writers word choice - or even topic choice. They remove God's involvement to the writer and claim that instead, the readers are inspired by God. So, the Scriptures are purely man's work - any historical accuracy is irrelevant other than to help teach some deeper, theological, pearl of wisdom. Also, inspired readers, being individuals, can each receive vastly different pearls of wisdom from the exact same text.

I can't really speak to the motivations of the folks that hold to these ideas, but to me the entire mindset seems to miss out on so many spiritual things that God is trying to teach us that it can only result in a heavily stunted faith... and I use the term "faith", rather loosely.

I hope that you continue to share you love for God's handiwork in His word!!