8 ms·

Whenever this topic comes up, I’m always reminded of the fact that the bible knew of this long before any statistician. 'My spirit shall not abide in man for e

Whenever this topic comes up, I’m always reminded of the fact that the bible knew of this long before any statistician. 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh; his days shall be a hundred and twenty years' (Gen. 6:3). As a non Christian this always baffles me.

james-redwood 5y ago
That’s an incredible verse: we underestimate the wisdom of the ancients sometimes.
- telchior 5y ago
  On the contrary, it's incredibly common for people to want to believe that the ancients were somehow better or wiser than we are, or marvel over supposedly impossible feats (see: pyramids, Greek fire, occasionally semi-correct guesses about the nature of the universe). They were just people like us; right sometimes, wrong much more often, but in their case, lacking the tools to verify most ideas.
- coffeefirst 5y ago
  This is downvoted but it's also true. It's really impressive what they were able to build and figure out with the tools available too them. (This isn't a great example, but let's put that aside.) Now, they also believed the mind was porous and spirits could flow in and out of your head, that you could predict the future by looking at bird patterns, and other nonsense. But then again, have you talked to any Wellness enthusiasts lately? So yeah, this is pretty cool, but it's also a warning. Everything people did a few centuries or a millennia ago is still in human nature.
14 5y ago
So if we get a single human who, without dispute as the oldest woman has some controversy as to the validity of her age, lives past the age of 120 will that be proof the bible is untrue and all it’s writings are false? Because I have a funny feeling now that people are much more documented we will pass the 120 year mark any time.
- okl 5y ago
  Figure this: If I come up with a theory that people can grow older than 120 years because of a golden teacup whizzing about somewhere in the Oort cloud, and we find a person older than 120 years, does that mean the golden teacup exists?
  - dTal 5y ago
    You've convinced me. Where can I learn more about this golden teacup of eternal youth? Does it answer prayers maybe?
- vorejdajo 5y ago
  Not really. Because it wasn't a hard limit. Even after the Bible records that God said this, it records people living to 450, 175, 120 years and so on. After God said, the span gradually reduced to well below 120. So, a case could be made that it wasn't a hard limit.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > So if we get a single human who, without dispute as the oldest woman has some controversy as to the validity of her age, lives past the age of 120 will that be proof the bible is untrue and all it’s writings are false? No, it will prove that Biblical literalism is false, but that's a novel minority doctrine in Christianity that is already disproven by (among other things) the two conflicting creation sequences in Genesis.
- spijdar 5y ago
  Well, the chapter prior to that one describes humans living for hundreds of years, so I don't think someone living past 120 will really introduce any more theological problems.
- blangkz 5y ago
  Perhaps it will just mean we are drifting further from god.
- vmception 5y ago
  Goalposts, if you want to know what they will move to: “It wasn't literal [, where convenient]” “The New Testament retcons this, ignore inconvenient or contradictory things in the Old Testament” “It was translated wrong in ye olde English from Greek and Hebrew” and finally conclude “it’s open to interpretation” there, I saved you the whole conversation.
brnaftr361 5y ago
Gilgamesh did it first. On immortality, my thing is actually psychologically framing it were it to become a reality; it's entirely inconsistent with everything we have ever known. I think mortality has a purpose within the context of life. And there's literally limitless implications it would have. To me it seems like the most inhumane pursuit conceivable.
- verve_rat 5y ago
  Where as to me, not pursuing it is condemning people to countless years of not existing. Which seems far more cruel than choosing to have a limited life span. What is the difference between not investing in life extension research and just putting a pillow over the face of a million people?
  - brnaftr361 5y ago
    Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering. On the obverse side, there's a string of unavoidable consequences and complications that are unfathomable. Once such a technique becomes available though, that culpability becomes real. And on many complex levels. It's a fools errand cartooned in the purile mind, and far more responsibility than humanity will ever be capable of justly handling.
    - verve_rat 5y ago
      >Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering. The trolley problem would like a word. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
      - brnaftr361 5y ago
        You're effectively switching the track to "Strangulate the whole planet with humans and their downstream effects!", very cool, or y'know any other disasterous permutation. We've already got population issues if that isn't compelling enough for you.
okl 5y ago
Funny, because there are many bible characters older than 120 years. One of many contradictions, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
- School-Cotton 5y ago
  The Bible is a loose collection of different books written by different authors over a period of thousands of years. We shouldn’t be surprised that some of them say different things.
  - Flankk 5y ago
    - liquidise 5y ago
      Neither commenter was advocating for having it both ways. I don't even find them at odds with one another. I happen to agree with both assertions. OP: "millenia old book makes claim about life that is empirically uncontroverted in 2022" – i agree Parent: "the bible is a collection of stories and contradictions should be expected" – i also agree The first half of your comment could indeed be relevant in the right discussion, but this thread was not it. The rest then falls terribly flat and comes off needlessly aggressive and snide. > Christians are easily confused I would be embarrassed writing such things in a public forum.
      - Flankk 5y ago
        liquidise 5y ago
        Are you serious? You’ve left behind petty stereotyping and are boldly venturing into bigotry here.
acchow 5y ago
How many numbers are in the Bible, and how many of them are wrong (which we conveniently gloss over). The world was made in 6 days?
- stickyricky 5y ago
  My recommendation to you would be to not read ancient sources. Secular sources are not any more rigorous.
- swayvil 5y ago
  Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. Metaphors taken literally. Literality taken metaphorically. Esoterica interpreted conventionally. Guiding the hand of the translator. Mistranslation compounding over the iterations. Any useful knowledge must get lost like dust in the wind.
  - okl 5y ago
    > Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. If it is up to the reader to decide which is and which isn't a metaphor that should not be taken literally, than the text is no better than the reader's capability to distinguish metaphors from facts to be taken literally, is it?
    - swayvil 5y ago
      Well, yes. It's a failure of the medium. It requires an expert to interpret properly. And most of us aren't that. And some of those in charge of translation and interpretation aren't that either.
      - oblak 5y ago
        Hah. I wonder what of experts you have in mind
  - acchow 5y ago
    > Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. right, so if a biblical number is wrong we find some reason to excuse it.
killingtime74 5y ago
lucky guess i'd say
theodorejb 5y ago
Consider another translation: “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.” (Genesis 6:3, KJV). This verse is not specifying a maximum human lifespan, but the period of probation in which God's spirit would strive or plead with mankind before their judgment by the Flood. This is the period during which “the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing” (1 Peter 3:20). Genesis records numerous descendents of Noah who lived longer than 120 years (see Gen. 11:10-25). Lifespans did decline rapidly after the Flood, however, and it was recorded in Psalms that “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.” (Psalms 90:10). Even today with our advanced medical knowledge and technology, life expectancy is still typically between 75-85 years.
- alfiedotwtf 5y ago
  Doesn't the Bible also state that Enoch and Elijah never died? If you're a Christian, doesn't this mean that you believe that they are both still alive and are world's oldest humans
  - theodorejb 5y ago
    Yes, and Moses as well who was resurrected. But they are in heaven where the Tree of Life is. We cannot live forever without eating from that tree (see Gen. 3:22-24).
cogman10 5y ago
Then go read Psalms 90:10 and realize the bible has contradictions. As an athiest, there's nothing baffling here. Someone guessed 120, perhaps they even knew someone that lived that long or near that long. This sort of "they got this right!" thing happens in a lot of other religions (look up "proofs of the Koran" for examples from the Islamic perspective). Even mormons got it right that some ancient american civs discovered concrete.
giantg2 5y ago
Many of the numbers in the Bible are not literal. Partly due to translation and cultural meanings of various phrases.
staticman2 5y ago
The verse you quoted doesn't say our maximum age is 120, it literally say we live to 120. It must have been obviously inaccurate even when it was written.
nicoburns 5y ago
> As a non Christian this always baffles me. I don't understand how this is in any way baffling. There were plenty of humans around for people to observe when the bible was being written, and some of them probably lived to be quite old.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  How many 120 year olds do you think the average person would be exposed to several thousand years ago? Especially in an age where birth certificates did not exist. I have never seen a supercentenarian myself, and I have been in a lot of nursing homes. I only know they exist because of the internet to be honest.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Personally, probably not very many. But traditions of information sharing and story telling between humans have been strong long before the internet. This isn't some obscure information about space or DNA or something. This is something that would have been relatively accessible without technology.
tim333 5y ago
Bible fans should really study up on how Noah lived 950 years. Maybe ark building is good for health?

james-redwood 5y ago

That’s an incredible verse: we underestimate the wisdom of the ancients sometimes.

telchior 5y ago
On the contrary, it's incredibly common for people to want to believe that the ancients were somehow better or wiser than we are, or marvel over supposedly impossible feats (see: pyramids, Greek fire, occasionally semi-correct guesses about the nature of the universe). They were just people like us; right sometimes, wrong much more often, but in their case, lacking the tools to verify most ideas.
coffeefirst 5y ago
This is downvoted but it's also true. It's really impressive what they were able to build and figure out with the tools available too them. (This isn't a great example, but let's put that aside.) Now, they also believed the mind was porous and spirits could flow in and out of your head, that you could predict the future by looking at bird patterns, and other nonsense. But then again, have you talked to any Wellness enthusiasts lately? So yeah, this is pretty cool, but it's also a warning. Everything people did a few centuries or a millennia ago is still in human nature.

14 5y ago

So if we get a single human who, without dispute as the oldest woman has some controversy as to the validity of her age, lives past the age of 120 will that be proof the bible is untrue and all it’s writings are false? Because I have a funny feeling now that people are much more documented we will pass the 120 year mark any time.

okl 5y ago
Figure this: If I come up with a theory that people can grow older than 120 years because of a golden teacup whizzing about somewhere in the Oort cloud, and we find a person older than 120 years, does that mean the golden teacup exists?
- dTal 5y ago
  You've convinced me. Where can I learn more about this golden teacup of eternal youth? Does it answer prayers maybe?
vorejdajo 5y ago
Not really. Because it wasn't a hard limit. Even after the Bible records that God said this, it records people living to 450, 175, 120 years and so on. After God said, the span gradually reduced to well below 120. So, a case could be made that it wasn't a hard limit.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> So if we get a single human who, without dispute as the oldest woman has some controversy as to the validity of her age, lives past the age of 120 will that be proof the bible is untrue and all it’s writings are false? No, it will prove that Biblical literalism is false, but that's a novel minority doctrine in Christianity that is already disproven by (among other things) the two conflicting creation sequences in Genesis.
spijdar 5y ago
Well, the chapter prior to that one describes humans living for hundreds of years, so I don't think someone living past 120 will really introduce any more theological problems.
blangkz 5y ago
Perhaps it will just mean we are drifting further from god.
vmception 5y ago
Goalposts, if you want to know what they will move to: “It wasn't literal [, where convenient]” “The New Testament retcons this, ignore inconvenient or contradictory things in the Old Testament” “It was translated wrong in ye olde English from Greek and Hebrew” and finally conclude “it’s open to interpretation” there, I saved you the whole conversation.

brnaftr361 5y ago

Gilgamesh did it first. On immortality, my thing is actually psychologically framing it were it to become a reality; it's entirely inconsistent with everything we have ever known. I think mortality has a purpose within the context of life. And there's literally limitless implications it would have. To me it seems like the most inhumane pursuit conceivable.

verve_rat 5y ago
Where as to me, not pursuing it is condemning people to countless years of not existing. Which seems far more cruel than choosing to have a limited life span. What is the difference between not investing in life extension research and just putting a pillow over the face of a million people?
- brnaftr361 5y ago
  Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering. On the obverse side, there's a string of unavoidable consequences and complications that are unfathomable. Once such a technique becomes available though, that culpability becomes real. And on many complex levels. It's a fools errand cartooned in the purile mind, and far more responsibility than humanity will ever be capable of justly handling.
  - verve_rat 5y ago
    >Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering. The trolley problem would like a word. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
    - brnaftr361 5y ago
      You're effectively switching the track to "Strangulate the whole planet with humans and their downstream effects!", very cool, or y'know any other disasterous permutation. We've already got population issues if that isn't compelling enough for you.

okl 5y ago

Funny, because there are many bible characters older than 120 years. One of many contradictions, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

School-Cotton 5y ago
The Bible is a loose collection of different books written by different authors over a period of thousands of years. We shouldn’t be surprised that some of them say different things.
- Flankk 5y ago
  - liquidise 5y ago
    Neither commenter was advocating for having it both ways. I don't even find them at odds with one another. I happen to agree with both assertions. OP: "millenia old book makes claim about life that is empirically uncontroverted in 2022" – i agree Parent: "the bible is a collection of stories and contradictions should be expected" – i also agree The first half of your comment could indeed be relevant in the right discussion, but this thread was not it. The rest then falls terribly flat and comes off needlessly aggressive and snide. > Christians are easily confused I would be embarrassed writing such things in a public forum.
    - Flankk 5y ago
      - liquidise 5y ago
        Are you serious? You’ve left behind petty stereotyping and are boldly venturing into bigotry here.

acchow 5y ago

How many numbers are in the Bible, and how many of them are wrong (which we conveniently gloss over). The world was made in 6 days?

stickyricky 5y ago
My recommendation to you would be to not read ancient sources. Secular sources are not any more rigorous.
swayvil 5y ago
Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. Metaphors taken literally. Literality taken metaphorically. Esoterica interpreted conventionally. Guiding the hand of the translator. Mistranslation compounding over the iterations. Any useful knowledge must get lost like dust in the wind.
- okl 5y ago
  > Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. If it is up to the reader to decide which is and which isn't a metaphor that should not be taken literally, than the text is no better than the reader's capability to distinguish metaphors from facts to be taken literally, is it?
  - swayvil 5y ago
    Well, yes. It's a failure of the medium. It requires an expert to interpret properly. And most of us aren't that. And some of those in charge of translation and interpretation aren't that either.
    - oblak 5y ago
      Hah. I wonder what of experts you have in mind
- acchow 5y ago
  > Maybe that 6 days is a metaphor. right, so if a biblical number is wrong we find some reason to excuse it.

killingtime74 5y ago

lucky guess i'd say

theodorejb 5y ago

Consider another translation: “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.” (Genesis 6:3, KJV). This verse is not specifying a maximum human lifespan, but the period of probation in which God's spirit would strive or plead with mankind before their judgment by the Flood. This is the period during which “the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing” (1 Peter 3:20). Genesis records numerous descendents of Noah who lived longer than 120 years (see Gen. 11:10-25). Lifespans did decline rapidly after the Flood, however, and it was recorded in Psalms that “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.” (Psalms 90:10). Even today with our advanced medical knowledge and technology, life expectancy is still typically between 75-85 years.

alfiedotwtf 5y ago
Doesn't the Bible also state that Enoch and Elijah never died? If you're a Christian, doesn't this mean that you believe that they are both still alive and are world's oldest humans
- theodorejb 5y ago
  Yes, and Moses as well who was resurrected. But they are in heaven where the Tree of Life is. We cannot live forever without eating from that tree (see Gen. 3:22-24).

cogman10 5y ago

Then go read Psalms 90:10 and realize the bible has contradictions. As an athiest, there's nothing baffling here. Someone guessed 120, perhaps they even knew someone that lived that long or near that long. This sort of "they got this right!" thing happens in a lot of other religions (look up "proofs of the Koran" for examples from the Islamic perspective). Even mormons got it right that some ancient american civs discovered concrete.

giantg2 5y ago

Many of the numbers in the Bible are not literal. Partly due to translation and cultural meanings of various phrases.

staticman2 5y ago

The verse you quoted doesn't say our maximum age is 120, it literally say we live to 120. It must have been obviously inaccurate even when it was written.

nicoburns 5y ago

> As a non Christian this always baffles me. I don't understand how this is in any way baffling. There were plenty of humans around for people to observe when the bible was being written, and some of them probably lived to be quite old.

missedthecue 5y ago
How many 120 year olds do you think the average person would be exposed to several thousand years ago? Especially in an age where birth certificates did not exist. I have never seen a supercentenarian myself, and I have been in a lot of nursing homes. I only know they exist because of the internet to be honest.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Personally, probably not very many. But traditions of information sharing and story telling between humans have been strong long before the internet. This isn't some obscure information about space or DNA or something. This is something that would have been relatively accessible without technology.

tim333 5y ago

Bible fans should really study up on how Noah lived 950 years. Maybe ark building is good for health?