The Bible.?

Question

In Genesis, when it talks of all of these different people and how they lived up to 900 some odd years, this isnt ment to be taken literally is it?

Answer 1

Yes, it is. Lifespan before the global flood was longer because there was a protective layer of moisture covering the earth like a canopy. It made conditions perfect for a long life. When the flood occurred, this canopy rained down - that's how the earth was flooded - and God said that after that point life spans would decrease. We no longer have that protection.

Answer 2

Sure it is. The first people were made completely perfect and set in a perfect environment.They were meant to live eternally.Then they blew it. As you can see from Genesis 5,every suceeding generation lived a little less and a little less until we get to Noah,then the flood.After that God said the average age would be 120 years. The flood took away the protective water covering that enveloped the earth.Now man on top of the more polluted environment,now had the full effect of the sun ravaging their bodies and the life span got shorter and shorter until the time of David (3000 B.C.) he says man is fortunate to live to be 70.Due to ignorance of sanitary conditions etc. man had a life span of 50 years by the Middle Ages.Now it is almost back to 80 years .We were smart,got dumb ,then dumber and now we are beginning to get smart again.

Answer 3

yes, here's why:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/interpret.html

"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition." Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727

Dr. David L. Cooper, the founder of The Biblical Research Society, was proficient in the Biblical languages. He studied Greek under Dr. A. T. Robertson. Dr. Cooper is known for his “Golden Rule of Interpretation” which is as follows:

When the plain sense of Scripture

makes common sense,

seek no other sense;

Therefore, take every word

at its primary, ordinary,

usual, literal meaning

Unless the facts

of the immediate context,

studied in the light

Of related passages and

axiomatic and fundamental truths

indicate clearly otherwise.

[This rule was published regularly in Dr. Cooper's monthly magazine, Biblical Research Monthly.]

--

If God be the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought. [Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 81.]

--

The Clarifying Statement on Dispensationalism, published by the New England Bible Conference, says it this way:

The Bible must be interpreted literally which is the way language is normally and naturally understood. We recognize that the Bible writers frequently used figurative language which is a normal and picturesque way of portraying literal truth. The Bible must be understood in the light of the normal use of language, the usage of words, the historical and cultural background, the context of the passage and the overall teaching of the Bible (2 Tim. 2:15). Most importantly, the believer must study the Bible in full dependence upon the SPIRIT OF TRUTH whose ministry is to reveal Christ and illumine the minds and hearts of believers (John 5:39; 16:13-15; 1 Cor. 2:9-16). The natural, unregenerate man cannot understand or interpret correctly the Word of God. The things of God are foolishness to him, he cannot know them (1 Cor. 2:14), and his mind is blinded (Rom. 3:11; 2 Cor. 4:3-4).

Answer 4

Although many of my fellow Christians are certain that it is meant to be taken literally, this is not *necessarily* so.

It is true that Jacob/Israel complained of growing old at such a young age (he died at 120), and claimed that it was not so with his ancestors. Also, it is true that, generally, the lifespan of the patriarchs of the bible gradually shortened from the time of Adam until the time of Jacob. Thus, it *does* seem most likely that the ages recorded are literal.

However, it should be noted that the terms normally translated "father of" and "fathered" can be equally well translated as "ancestor of". Likewise, the terms normally translated "son of" or "fathered by" can be translated accurately as "descendant of". Thus, the genealogies in Genesis, particularly, are not questionable in name but *are* *possibly* mis-understood as to *period of years*.

Thus, consider Gen 5:6-8
6. And Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh.
7. Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters.
8. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.

This *could* be loosely (to save time, but arguably accurately) translated "Seth [or, the *house* or *family* of Seth] existed 105 years and then fathered Enosh. Then [the family of] Seth lived 807 years and produced other kids, and [the family of] Seth existed 912 years".

However, this does not seem likely, especially when considering the gradual shortening of lifespan, seen in nearly every generation in Gen. On the other hand, this *can* explain the discrepancy between scientific determination of human society (Jericho, a walled city about 11,000 years ago) and biblical age (Adam, the 1st human, about 6,000 years ago). If, for example, the *house* of Enosh was descended from the *house* of Seth, or (to put it another way) Enosh was some distant descendant (son) of the family or line of Seth, then any number of years may have passed between the failure of one house (the death of Seth, or of his namesake years later) and the rise of the inheriting house (Enosh, and his namesakes). This is no more than a theory, but it has the advantage of not contradicting scripture (it merely contradicts the translation).

As an interesting point, science is discovering some things that are related to unusual longevity. One is the genetic pre-disposition to form (unusually) large cholesterol molecules leading to unusual longevity. Another is the production of resveratrol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol , which has been determined to (statistically) *double* the life of lab animals. It is produced when an animal's diet is severely restricted. The doctor discovering this says men who wish to take advantage of this should eat 1500 calories a day - less for women. Aging is literally *slowed* in lab animals subject to this regimen. The doctor also discovered that humans with unusual longevity often have an extra copy of the resveratrol-producing gene, and thus do not have to restrict their diet to gain the benefits.

Consider the possibility of humans living to twice their average age, simply because they eat less.

Consider, also, what will happen with further discoveries which identify reasons for why, and how quickly, humans age. Our grandchildren may well think it normal to live to be 200.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 5

Yes, it is. Everything in the Bible is true! God never changes, and He doesn't lie. Otherwise we would have absolutly no hope at all! Anyhow, I really don't know why they lived that long back then, but they did. I know it's hard to belive, but you just have to have faith. Without faith, you can't be a Christian. You must believe without seeing. You believe in wind, don't you? You can't see it, but you can feel it and hear it. Being a Christian is just the same. None of us have seen God, but we believe that He is real because we have seen what He can do in our lives.
God Bless!!

Answer 6

Yes it was. That is how long they lived back then.
People lived less and less farther on and that because of clean blood lines.
The blood lines were so pure back then.
I asked the same question 3 days ago. Thats what someone told me.
Thats sounds like it could be true. I take everything in the bible as fact unless it is figurtive.

Answer 7

There was never to be death on earth. People lived that long back then. Sin is what brought death and the more sin in the world the younger people died. Look now avarage age is 75

Answer 8

yea it is...they lived for that long bc b4 the atmosphere was broken by some big thing that happened the air was fresh and new and things grew the size of houses and at night you could here the stars singing....literally

Answer 9

they really did live this long....man originally was ment to live longer, but not forever....death came upon everything...all that has life..and if the Lord did not put a stop to it, we would have become extinct... :)

Answer 10

Yes it is. Keep reading for an explanation of why this isn't nowadays.