What about biblical human lifespans?

[SkyWriting]

But i wonder, are they extremely old because they actually lived that long, or is there some other reason, maybe a cultural reason for these characters being recorded to having long life? For Christians who accept things that modern science points to (evolution, old earth, etc), what do you think about this?

Well, according to "modern science" there is no known reason for cells to stop duplicating forever. They have found no clear reason for death. So there ya go. Modern Science agrees that long life is possible as the Bible reads.

 

[Ariston]

I am not sure. But, I know that we have records in other ancient cultures that recorded much longer life spans. I have heard it suggested that giving ancestors a long life span was a way by which they were honored. What goes against this I think is that the ages are given precise numbers suggesting that an historical account. I have never heard of the "tribe suggestion" and it is interesting. Is it possible that the literalist is right? Could God have so ordained a world where humans lived long periods of time in the ancient past. Most certainly it is possible.

 

[Assyrian]

I am not sure. But, I know that we have records in other ancient cultures that recorded much longer life spans. I have heard it suggested that giving ancestors a long life span was a way by which they were honored. What goes against this I think is that the ages are given precise numbers suggesting that an historical account. I have never heard of the "tribe suggestion" and it is interesting. Is it possible that the literalist is right? Could God have so ordained a world where humans lived long periods of time in the ancient past. Most certainly it is possible.

This may be a case of reading the text through modern 21st century spectacles. To us, precise numbers suggests scientific accuracy, but that is not how people would have viewed numbers before the age of science, while symbolic meanings were much more important to them than they are to us.

 

[Ariston]

So what is the symbolic meaning? They were in fact quite competent in their ability to use exact numbers during the time when the Torah was written. They use symbols too. But we cannot arbitrary decide that the numbers are symbols.

 

[Assyrian]

So what is the symbolic meaning? They were in fact quite competent in their ability to use exact numbers during the time when the Torah was written. They use symbols too. But we cannot arbitrary decide that the numbers are symbols.

Just as we cannot arbitrarily decide they are literal. The problem a lot of people today is approaching scripture with the assumption that it is speaking literally. We need to be open different possible interpretations.

 

[ChetSinger]

Josephus took the lifespans literally, appealing to non-Jewish sources to bolster his case. So has the church.

If God's going to give us bodies which can last forever, why is there difficulty accepting he gave the first men bodies which lasted up to 900 years? I mean, where is this resistance coming from?

It seems like the default position of some Christians is to disbelieve everything in the OT unless it's corroborated by other sources. But then they believe everything in the NT? I see a disconnect there.

 

[greentwiga]

Genealogy of David

9 Now the sons of Hezron, who were born to him were Jerahmeel, Ram and Chelubai. 10 Ram became the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, leader of the sons of Judah; 11 Nahshon became the father of Salma, Salma became the father of Boaz, 12 Boaz became the father of Obed, and Obed became the father of Jesse; 13 and Jesse became the father of Eliab his firstborn, then Abinadab the second, Shimea the third, 14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh

This is part of the Genealogy of David. Nashon led Judah at the Exodus, Salma married Rahab in the time of Joshua about 1360 BC. Boaz married Ruth and they fathered Obed who fathered Jesse about 1080 BC. When you compare this to the four levitical genealogies, it becomes obvious that people were left out of the Davidic genealogy. Their culture was different, and for them, it was very accurate to say Boaz was the father of Obed when eight generations might have been left out. We see something similar in the New Testament when the Jews claim that Abraham was their father. They used the term as we might use progenitor.

With that, the Bible can be quite accurate to say that "Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel." when there might have been 30 generations between. Just remember, in trying to understand these passages, limit yourself to what is seen in the Bible. With the word father, limit to the different uses seen in the Bible. I am not saying that people didn't live for 900 years, I am just saying that according to usages in the Bible, there are different interpretations that are reasonable and Biblical.

 

[ChetSinger]

Genealogy of David

9 Now the sons of Hezron, who were born to him were Jerahmeel, Ram and Chelubai. 10 Ram became the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, leader of the sons of Judah; 11 Nahshon became the father of Salma, Salma became the father of Boaz, 12 Boaz became the father of Obed, and Obed became the father of Jesse; 13 and Jesse became the father of Eliab his firstborn, then Abinadab the second, Shimea the third, 14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh

This is part of the Genealogy of David. Nashon led Judah at the Exodus, Salma married Rahab in the time of Joshua about 1360 BC. Boaz married Ruth and they fathered Obed who fathered Jesse about 1080 BC. When you compare this to the four levitical genealogies, it becomes obvious that people were left out of the Davidic genealogy. Their culture was different, and for them, it was very accurate to say Boaz was the father of Obed when eight generations might have been left out. We see something similar in the New Testament when the Jews claim that Abraham was their father. They used the term as we might use progenitor.

With that, the Bible can be quite accurate to say that "Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel." when there might have been 30 generations between. Just remember, in trying to understand these passages, limit yourself to what is seen in the Bible. With the word father, limit to the different uses seen in the Bible. I am not saying that people didn't live for 900 years, I am just saying that according to usages in the Bible, there are different interpretations that are reasonable and Biblical.

Hello, and welcome to CF!

Hebrew genealogies do sometimes leave people out.

But the genealogies in Genesis 5 are constructed differently than later ones, and likely predate the Hebrews. For example, Genesis 5 and the antediluvian portion of the Sumerian King's List probably share the same source. They both begin with the First Man, end with the Flood Hero, and have eight generations between them.

The full text of Kenan's portion of the genealogy is below:

When Kenan had lived 70 years, he fathered Mahalalel.

Kenan lived after he fathered Mahalalel 840 years and had other sons and daughters.

Thus all the days of Kenan were 910 years, and he died.

Imo, I think it's meant to be taken at face value, for the following reasons:

1. It seems pretty specific, perhaps even designed to be difficult to argue against.
2. Josephus accepted and defended the lifespans.
3. Why couldn't God design the first men to live 900 years? After all, don't we expect to live forever?

 

[greentwiga]

Hello, and welcome to CF!

Hebrew genealogies do sometimes leave people out.

But the genealogies in Genesis 5 are constructed differently than later ones, and likely predate the Hebrews. For example, Genesis 5 and the antediluvian portion of the Sumerian King's List probably share the same source. They both begin with the First Man, end with the Flood Hero, and have eight generations between them.

The full text of Kenan's portion of the genealogy is below:




Imo, I think it's meant to be taken at face value, for the following reasons:

1. It seems pretty specific, perhaps even designed to be difficult to argue against.
2. Josephus accepted and defended the lifespans.
3. Why couldn't God design the first men to live 900 years? After all, don't we expect to live forever?

Notice that I said that what you said is a reasonable Biblical interpretation. The reason I doubt it is that the story of Adam and Eve fits perfectly into the events of about 9,000 BC. I am not sure which method of interpreting might be best. I am still researching. When I researched in the past, I would think that X was a logical interpretation of something in the Bible, then later realize that the Bible was clear, but it was neither the traditional y or my x, but z. Therefore, I am not saying it is definitely missing people, or saying it is not 900 years.

 

[Papias]

Chetsinger wrote:

I've been reading Josephus and came across this passage .....

Hey, I meant to comment on this earlier, but have been busy.

Thanks for finding and sharing this. It is always cool to find other relevant sources, and here is one written 1,900 years ago!

While we may differ about whether those ages are real or not, it was really cool to learn something new - that Josephus had directly commented on the question at hand.

Thanks!

-Papias

 

[Calminian]

Chetsinger wrote:



Hey, I meant to comment on this earlier, but have been busy.

Thanks for finding and sharing this. It is always cool to find other relevant sources, and here is one written 1,900 years ago!

While we may differ about whether those ages are real or not, it was really cool to learn something new - that Josephus had directly commented on the question at hand.

Thanks!

-Papias

Josephus gives a lot of valuable input about how the ancient jews thought and what they believed. As a historian, he was drawing on many sources, including the Bible translations he had available to him. He indeed supported just about everything in Genesis, from a talking snake with legs, to a literal Cain and Abel, to a literal flood to a literal dispersion at Babel.

Modern jews view Genesis differently now, but it seems the jews of antiquity took the book at face value and as literal history.

 

[Assyrian]

Josephus gives a lot of valuable input about how the ancient jews thought and what they believed. As a historian, he was drawing on many sources, including the Bible translations he had available to him. He indeed supported just about everything in Genesis, from a talking snake with legs, to a literal Cain and Abel, to a literal flood to a literal dispersion at Babel.

Modern jews view Genesis differently now, but it seems the jews of antiquity took the book at face value and as literal history.

Josephus interpreted the story of Adam and Eve allegorically. So did Philo of Alexandria.

 

[ChetSinger]

Josephus interpreted the story of Adam and Eve allegorically. So did Philo of Alexandria.

Perhaps one portion of it, yes. But regarding the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs he defends a literal reading by referencing the writings of others.

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps one portion of it, yes. But regarding the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs he defends a literal reading by referencing the writings of others.

Yes. I remember coming across Josephus justifying the long lifespans in the bible by appealing to long lifespans in Babylonian king lists.

 

[Calminian]

Josephus interpreted the story of Adam and Eve allegorically. So did Philo of Alexandria.

Ancient jews interpreted just about everything allegorically, but literally also. I've not read anything from Josephus indicating he didn't believe Adam was a literal person. In fact, I don't know of any fathers that didn't believe in a literal Adam. They attached allegory to just about everything, but not as a substitute for the literal.

The key is in understanding the terms. Allegory to them was what we often call typology. The early fathers attached futuristic predictions to literal things like the days of creation, but still believed in the literal days. That's why they virtually all believed the world would only last for 6,000 years, because they believed the literal days were also types for 1000 year future periods. They were six literal day young earth creationists, but allegorists regarding the future. Ancient allegory did not negate literal interpretations. Ross and others have missed this important distinction. And even the few that weren't 6 day literalists, still believed in a young earth and fought the old earth philosophies of their day. Despite pressure for their culture, they fought for a young world.

Antiq. 1:34 (1.1.2) Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over,1 begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul.2 This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. 35 (1.1.2) God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; 36 (1.1.2) whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living.​

Antiq. 1:37 (1.1.3) Moses says further, that God planted a paradise in the east, flourishing with all sorts of trees; and that among them was the tree of life, and another of knowledge, whereby was to be known what was good and evil; 38 (1.1.3) and that when he brought Adam and his wife into this garden, he commanded them to take care of the plants. Now the garden was watered by one river,3 which ran round about the whole earth, and was parted into four parts. And Phison, which denotes a multitude, running into India, makes its exit into the sea, and is by the Greeks called Ganges. 39 (1.1.3) Euphrates also, as well as Tigris, goes down into the Red Sea.4 Now the name Euphrates, or Phrath, denotes either a dispersion, or a flower: by Tigris, or Diglath, is signified what is swift, with narrowness; and Geon runs through Egypt, and denotes what arises from the east, which the Greeks call Nile.​

As you go down the story, all individuals were literal. Cain literally murdered Able, built a literal city etc. And a lot is added to the Biblical version, so it was not his only source.

Here's a good article on Josephus.

Josephus says, ‘Genesis means what it says!’

 

[Assyrian]

Ancient jews interpreted just about everything allegorically, but literally also. I've not read anything from Josephus indicating he didn't believe Adam was a literal person. In fact, I don't know of any fathers that didn't believe in a literal Adam. They attached allegory to just about everything, but not as a substitute for the literal.

The key is in understanding the terms. Allegory to them was what we often call typology. The early fathers attached futuristic predictions to literal things like the days of creation, but still believed in the literal days. That's why they virtually all believed the world would only last for 6,000 years, because they believed the literal days were also types for 1000 year future periods. They were six literal day young earth creationists, but allegorists regarding the future. Ancient allegory did not negate literal interpretations. Ross and others have missed this important distinction. And even the few that weren't 6 day literalists, still believed in a young earth and fought the old earth philosophies of their day. Despite pressure for their culture, they fought for a young world.

Antiq. 1:34 (1.1.2) Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over,1 begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul.2 This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. 35 (1.1.2) God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; 36 (1.1.2) whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living.​

Antiq. 1:37 (1.1.3) Moses says further, that God planted a paradise in the east, flourishing with all sorts of trees; and that among them was the tree of life, and another of knowledge, whereby was to be known what was good and evil; 38 (1.1.3) and that when he brought Adam and his wife into this garden, he commanded them to take care of the plants. Now the garden was watered by one river,3 which ran round about the whole earth, and was parted into four parts. And Phison, which denotes a multitude, running into India, makes its exit into the sea, and is by the Greeks called Ganges. 39 (1.1.3) Euphrates also, as well as Tigris, goes down into the Red Sea.4 Now the name Euphrates, or Phrath, denotes either a dispersion, or a flower: by Tigris, or Diglath, is signified what is swift, with narrowness; and Geon runs through Egypt, and denotes what arises from the east, which the Greeks call Nile.​

As you go down the story, all individuals were literal. Cain literally murdered Able, built a literal city etc. And a lot is added to the Biblical version, so it was not his only source.

Here's a good article on Josephus.

Josephus says, ‘Genesis means what it says!’

Have a look at the Preface Josephus wrote to he Antiquities where he explained the different way Moses wrote.

I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of; but if God afford me time for it, I will set about writing it after I have finished the present work. I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.
Josephus, Antiquities, Preface 1.4
​

It wasn't just a case of Josephus giving an allegorical interpretation to passage he thought were literal. According to Josephus, Moses wrote some thing plainly and directly, but passages were written as allegories. They were never intended to be taken literally. Look back at the passage I highlighted in in you first Josephus quote.

Moses, after the seventh day was over,1 begins to talk philosophically.
​

While Josephus did take the creation week literally, he tells us that Moses changed the way he was talking at the end of the creation week to another form of discourse. If the seven days of creation was giving a 'direct explication plainly and expressly', then the story of Adam and Eve wasn't that kind of writing. In the first century 'talking philosophically' was another way of saying 'allegorically'.

If we look a Philo, he wasn't allegorizing passages he though literal either. He though the creation week and the story of Adam and Eve were meant allegorically and that it was foolish to interpret them literally.

'And God finished on the sixth day His works which He had made' (Genesis 2:2). It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days in a space of time at all. Why? Because every period of time is a series of days and nights, and these can only be made such by the movement of the sun as it goes over and under the earth; but the sun is part of heaven, so that time is confessedly more recent than the world. It would therefore be correct to say that the world was not made in time, but that time was formed by means of the world, for it was heaven's movement that was the index of the nature of time."
Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation, 1.2.2

'And God brought a trance upon Adam, and he fell asleep; and He took one of his sides' (Genesis 2:21) and what follows. These words in their literal sense are of the nature of a myth [mythodes]. For how could anyone admit that a woman, or a human being at all, came into existence out of a man's side?"
Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation, 2.7.19
​

 

[Calminian]

Have a look at the Preface Josephus wrote to he Antiquities where he explained the different way Moses wrote.

I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of; but if God afford me time for it, I will set about writing it after I have finished the present work. I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.
Josephus, Antiquities, Preface 1.4
​

It wasn't just a case of Josephus giving an allegorical interpretation to passage he thought were literal. According to Josephus, Moses wrote some thing plainly and directly, but passages were written as allegories. They were never intended to be taken literally. Look back at the passage I highlighted in in you first Josephus quote.

Moses, after the seventh day was over,1 begins to talk philosophically.
​

While Josephus did take the creation week literally, he tells us that Moses changed the way he was talking at the end of the creation week to another form of discourse. If the seven days of creation was giving a 'direct explication plainly and expressly', then the story of Adam and Eve wasn't that kind of writing. In the first century 'talking philosophically' was another way of saying 'allegorically'.

If we look a Philo, he wasn't allegorizing passages he though literal either. He though the creation week and the story of Adam and Eve were meant allegorically and that it was foolish to interpret them literally.

'And God finished on the sixth day His works which He had made' (Genesis 2:2). It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days in a space of time at all. Why? Because every period of time is a series of days and nights, and these can only be made such by the movement of the sun as it goes over and under the earth; but the sun is part of heaven, so that time is confessedly more recent than the world. It would therefore be correct to say that the world was not made in time, but that time was formed by means of the world, for it was heaven's movement that was the index of the nature of time."
Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation, 1.2.2

'And God brought a trance upon Adam, and he fell asleep; and He took one of his sides' (Genesis 2:21) and what follows. These words in their literal sense are of the nature of a myth [mythodes]. For how could anyone admit that a woman, or a human being at all, came into existence out of a man's side?"
Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation, 2.7.19
​

I don't see anything here that disputes my post. Of course Moses an Josephus spoke some things literally and some things metaphorically. All human beings do. But you made specific claims about Josephus and the early fathers, which you didn't back up.

Josephus and the early fathers were young earth creationists, and a large majority of them believed in literal days. You can possibly find a couple of exceptions, but you won't find any old earth fathers that believed in the greek version of origins. That's a new development in christianity today.

But you need now worry about what Josephus or some early fathers believed. Moses believed in literal creation days. All that matters is what scripture says.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't see anything here that disputes my post. Of course Moses an Josephus spoke some things literally and some things metaphorically. All human beings do. But you made specific claims about Josephus and the early fathers, which you didn't back up.

I said Josephus and Philo interpreted the story of Adam and Eve allegorically which I have backed up. That is allegorical and not literal, instead of literally and allegorically.

Josephus and the early fathers were young earth creationists, and a large majority of them believed in literal days. You can possibly find a couple of exceptions, but you won't find any old earth fathers that believed in the greek version of origins. That's a new development in christianity today.

The church fathers didn't believe in an old earth because there wasn't any evidence for it. They did say you shouldn't hold onto an interpreation after science has show it to be wrong. In fact Augustine considered it disgraceful and dangerous when Christians did this.

But you need now worry about what Josephus or some early fathers believed. Moses believed in literal creation days. All that matters is what scripture says.

Where does Moses say the days were literal?

 

[ChetSinger]

I said Josephus and Philo interpreted the story of Adam and Eve allegorically which I have backed up. That is allegorical and not literal, instead of literally and allegorically.

Eh, I'm not too sure of Josephus. He indicates where he begins to speak "philosophically", but not where he stops.

So where does he stop, if ever? I think he believes the genealogies of Genesis 5 to be historical, because he defends the patriarch's long lifespans by appealing to pagan authors who said similar things.

The genealogies include Adam and Seth. So my conclusion is that he believed both of them to be real people. And if them, why not also Adam's sons Cain and Abel? That moves the end of "philosophical" thinking back to the end of Genesis 3, at the very least.

This, in my mind, limits "philosophical" thinking to Adam's creation and the Fall, at most. But it still puts Josephus in the "Adam lived 6,000 years ago" camp. And he seems to treat Genesis 1 as six literal days:

On the sixth day he created the four-footed beasts, and made them male and female: on the same day he also formed man. Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made. And that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations; whence it is that we Celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath, which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.

My conclusion is that Josephus was what we call a YEC: he believed in six literal creation days, performed 6,000 years ago, with the creation of man from the dust and the Fall perhaps treated allegorically.

 

[greentwiga]

Eh, I'm not too sure of Josephus. He indicates where he begins to speak "philosophically", but not where he stops.

So where does he stop, if ever? I think he believes the genealogies of Genesis 5 to be historical, because he defends the patriarch's long lifespans by appealing to pagan authors who said similar things.

The genealogies include Adam and Seth. So my conclusion is that he believed both of them to be real people. And if them, why not also Adam's sons Cain and Abel? That moves the end of "philosophical" thinking back to the end of Genesis 3, at the very least.

This, in my mind, limits "philosophical" thinking to Adam's creation and the Fall, at most. But it still puts Josephus in the "Adam lived 6,000 years ago" camp. And he seems to treat Genesis 1 as six literal days:


My conclusion is that Josephus was what we call a YEC: he believed in six literal creation days, performed 6,000 years ago, with the creation of man from the dust and the Fall perhaps treated allegorically.

Of course, Joseph also believed that one of the rivers of Eden was the Indus. He might have been in the camp that believed that the other was the Nile. Both are scientific impossibilities.

Calling one the Khabur, a river mentioned in Ezekiel fits both the Bible and science. It is interesting to know what the people of Josephus' time were thinking, but they were at least as wrong as we are.