God demonstrably wrong in Genesis

[Nithavela]

Alright, I think this settles it.

In Genesis 6, god says that the maximum age of humans is 120 years. Verbatim. It is not poetic justice, it is God really saying this. It even has quotes.

Genesis 6 NIV

1When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend witha humans forever, for they are mortalb ; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

French woman Jeanne Calment died in 1997, at the age of 122 and 167 days. Her age was verified by birth certificate.

So.. what's going on here?

 

[pgp_protector]

Alright, I think this settles it.

In Genesis 6, god says that the maximum age of humans is 120 years. Verbatim. It is not poetic justice, it is God really saying this. It even has quotes.

Genesis 6 NIV



French woman Jeanne Calment died in 1997, at the age of 122 and 167 days. Her age was verified by birth certificate.

So.. what's going on here?

She was a Woman, not a man

 

[CabVet]

Good point. And the Biblical text (at least the one pasted) says "humans", not "men".

 

[Gottservant]

10 years is a day.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are hours in a day.

God does not refer to time as an exact science.

Does a man decide to die for a specific length of time? No? Then a specific account of when each person is going to die is not necessary, on Earth.

But people die in space too, right? Please...

 

[CabVet]

10 years is a day.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are hours in a day.

God does not refer to time as an exact science.

Does a man decide to die for a specific length of time? No? Then a specific account of when each person is going to die is not necessary, on Earth.

But people die in space too, right? Please...

Yes, the Bible is 100% literal, unless the literal interpretation is wrong, in which case the Bible can be reinterpreted.

 

[AV1611VET]

In Genesis 6, god says that the maximum age of humans is 120 years.

Not.

Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Can you guess what happened 120 years later?

Trivia question: How long did it take Noah to build the Ark?

 

[CrazyChimera]

Yes, the Bible is 100% literal, unless the literal interpretation is wrong, in which case the Bible can be reinterpreted.

I wonder if Gottservent is a troll?

 

[CrazyChimera]

Not.

Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Can you guess what happened 120 years later?

Trivia question: How long did it take Noah to build the Ark?

More than 120 years.

 

[CrazyChimera]

I think it took him, gosh, it was either 300 or 400 years, I can't remember. Or maybe that was Noah's age (jeez, can you imagine? He would have looked like a living mummy).

 

[CabVet]

Not.

Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Can you guess what happened 120 years later?

Trivia question: How long did it take Noah to build the Ark?

You could have just told me to read the passage in context, but thanks anyways, I got it.

This topic does bring us back to the "know your stuff before you criticize it" though. Even though I don't believe in a flood, an Ark or even a person called "Noah", I can now tell you that the premise of the OP is wrong, something I could not have done without reading the full text. So, what the OP did here is equivalent to what most creationists do to evolution, the reasons they give for rejecting it are completely invalid, and similarly, the reason that the OP is giving to reject God is invalid, and that's because he doesn't know the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

You could have just told me to read the passage in context, but thanks anyways, I got it.

This topic does bring us back to the "know your stuff before you criticize it" though. Even though I don't believe in a flood, an Ark or even a person called "Noah", I can now tell you that the premise of the OP is wrong, something I could not have done without reading the full text. So, what the OP did here is equivalent to what most creationists do to evolution, the reasons they give for rejecting it are completely invalid, and similarly, the reason that the OP is giving to reject God is invalid, and that's because he doesn't know the Bible.

Is that how I sound when I criticize evolution?

I hope not.

When I reject evolution, I do it on principle.

And that principle is my belief in its antithesis: a belief in a literal Genesis 1.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes, the Bible is 100% literal, unless the literal interpretation is wrong, in which case the Bible can be reinterpreted.

Not even the Bible says the Bible is 100% literal.

I have told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.

Author of Genesis? Abraham.

Conclusion? You have no excuse not to use your ----- brain.

 

[Nick665]

Not even the Bible says the Bible is 100% literal.

Do you see the paradox in that ?

 

[CabVet]

Is that how I sound when I criticize evolution?

I hope not.

Most of the time you don't (except when you say that lactose intolerance doesn't affect the Jews ). But EternalDragon, Justatruthseeker, juvenissun, MarkT, anyathesword, dad, lifepsyop (just to name a few) make mistakes much worse than that. Gottservant is in an entirely different level all by himself though.

When I reject evolution, I do it on principle.

And that principle is my belief in its antithesis: a belief in a literal Genesis 1.

I am with you here, I am fully behind you when you say that "evidence can take a hike", what I don't like is when people say that the evidence doesn't support evolution when it overwhelmingly does.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am with you here, I am fully behind you when you say that "evidence can take a hike", what I don't like is when people say that the evidence doesn't support evolution when it overwhelmingly does.

You're just a friendly guy keep a conversation civil.

 

[Strathos]

Many of the lifespans given in the Bible after this point exceed that number too, so it's obvious God wasn't putting a hard cap on human lifespan there.

 

[Gottservant]

There's a cap... it's just not a cap people who take time completely literally have strength to understand.

Put it this way, what is the life expectancy of the human race if it's extinct? Zero? Zero less than 120? Yes? Then the Word has not lied, it'll just take a while before we see it.

 

[Old Ned]

Alright, I think this settles it.

In Genesis 6, god says that the maximum age of humans is 120 years. Verbatim. It is not poetic justice, it is God really saying this. It even has quotes.

Genesis 6 NIV



French woman Jeanne Calment died in 1997, at the age of 122 and 167 days. Her age was verified by birth certificate.

So.. what's going on here?

As much as I hate doing this, I also believe in fair play.

It says their days will be an (< cringes at English) hundred and twenty years.

It doesn't say a maximum of 120 years.

Wait, have we found a part of the bible that could be interpreted several different ways?

 

[AV1611VET]

So much for God being 'demonstrably wrong in Genesis'.

 

[juvenissun]

Alright, I think this settles it.

In Genesis 6, god says that the maximum age of humans is 120 years. Verbatim. It is not poetic justice, it is God really saying this. It even has quotes.

Genesis 6 NIV



French woman Jeanne Calment died in 1997, at the age of 122 and 167 days. Her age was verified by birth certificate.

So.. what's going on here?

Nothing, but very accurate. This example proves the accuracy of God's word.

Are you a scientist? Do you know what does the range of error mean in science? I am surprised on how could Moses put down 120, instead of 90 or 160. That is quite amazing.