- Dec 1, 2019
- 4,922
- 2,333
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
What is the Catholic teaching on Biblical lifespans 900 years old? Do we have to believe they’re literal?
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here’s what I think. We should remain open about them literally being true but also be able to see them more metaphorically. I lean to the metaphorical. I know of no Church teaching that demands we hold to literal hundreds of years.What is the Catholic teaching on Biblical lifespans 900 years old? Do we have to believe they’re literal?
IMO, their lifespans were highly exaggerated.I don’t have anything to add. I’m open to both. What unfolded during creation and how literal it was is anyone’s guess. I pretty much agree with how Chevy answered. Was there a literal Adam and Eve? Yes. As far as lifespan during that period is a mystery.
Well that up to you to decide. It’s not like it something we are obligated to believe.IMO, their lifespans were highly exaggerated.
Interesting article but I still don’t believe people lived that long. Is it still ok for a Catholic to not believe that or has it changed?occasionally get questions about the remarkably long lives of the patriarchs who lived before the great flood. Consider the ages at which these figures purportedly died:
How should we understand these references?Many theories have been proposed to explain the claimed longevity. Some use a mathematical corrective, but this leads to other pitfalls such as certain patriarchs apparently begetting children while still children themselves. Another theory proposes that the purported life spans of the patriarchs are just indications of their influence or family line, but then things don’t add up chronologically with eras and family trees.
- Adam – 930
- Seth – 912
- Enosh – 905
- Jared – 962
- Methuselah – 969
- Noah – 950
- Shem – 600
- Eber – 464
- Abraham – 175
- Moses – 120
- David – 70
Personally, I think we need to take the stated life spans of the patriarchs at face value and just accept it as a mystery: for some reason, the ancient patriarchs lived far longer than we do in the modern era. I cannot prove that they actually lived that long, but neither is there strong evidence that they did not. Frankly, I have little stake in insisting that they did in fact live to be that old. But if you ask me, I think it is best just to accept that they did.
This solution, when I articulate it, causes many to scoff. They almost seem to be offended. The reply usually sounds something like this: “That’s crazy. There’s no way they lived that long. The texts must be wrong.” To which I generally reply, “Why do you think it’s crazy or impossible?” The answers usually range from the glib to the more serious, but here are some common replies:
Continued below.
![]()
Did Noah Really Live to Be 950? - Community in Mission
I occasionally get questions about the remarkably long lives of the patriarchs who lived before the great flood. Consider the ages at which these figures purportedly died: Adam – 930 Seth – 912 Enosh – 905 Jared – 962 Methuselah – 969 Noah – 950 Shem – 600 Eber – 464 Abraham – 175 Moses …...blog.adw.org
No it’s the same.Interesting article but I still don’t believe people lived that klong. Is it still ok for a Catholic to not believe that or has it changed?
There is no required position on this, nor is there a required position on a great deal of Scripture. You are free to look at it this way or that way.Interesting article but I still don’t believe people lived that long. Is it still ok for a Catholic to not believe that or has it changed?
Good! Thanks.There is no required position on this, nor is there a required position on a great deal of Scripture. You are free to look at it this way or that way.
Thanks!No it’s the same.
On this, at least, the Catholic Church is not pretending to know it all.Good! Thanks.
I agree completely!Here’s what I think. We should remain open about them literally being true but also be able to see them more metaphorically. I lean to the metaphorical. I know of no Church teaching that demands we hold to literal hundreds of years.
I agree with chevyontheriver. It’s fine either wayMichie, Riley?