Assuming the bible is correct that humans lived far longer lives in the early days how can this be explained?

Question

using science? According to the bible humans lived hundreds of years in the beginning. I am wondering if science can come up with any explanation for how that could be possible when we are unable to live a comparable amount of time today even though we have more technology than ever.

...No faith answers please. I am just looking for SCIENCE!

Answer 1

There's actually no scientific evidence that people lived longer in the past. Any scientific article or scientific book on bioarchaeology (the study of remains of past peoples) will indicate that. Check out articles in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology to learn more about the scientific study of past peoples (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5488). You can tell the age of a person at death by looking at specific skeletal indicators, such as degree of suture closure, dental attrition, and joint degeneration. Thus, there are hundreds of documented findings of people from past societies, and the average age of death is much earlier than today. The lifespan of people has been steadily increasing for thousands of years. We have medications, vaccinations, and surgical techniques that allow us to survive through conditions that killed people quite young in the past.

Sometimes the Bible is telling you a moral story, or trying to make a point about something. Thus, not all of its small details should be treated as scientific fact. In this case, that detail simply isn't true. However, that does not negate the point of the story.

Answer 2

Sad you didn't get any great answers.... Most answers say if they existed they would have been healthier back then -- even if that was right, not healthy enough to live 900 years!!!! Also, they may have been eating less processed crap, BUT that means nothing. True they would have eventually realized "this berry make sick!" and stop eating those berries, but it's not always that simple. We are living LONGER than people in history and it is PROVEN - we have longer life spans than everyone in history. This is because we have KNOWLEDGE, MEDICINE, and TECHNOLOGY. SOOOOOOO, if those people existed, it would have been impossible for them to live that long for many reasons beside the obvious. Knowledge - We obviously know more about health that they did (true a lot of people ignore it, but we do KNOW), so.... Medicine - Diseases cause death - simple fact. If you don't understand the disease, where it's coming from, how to stop it, how to slow it down, it causes death. They wouldn't have medicine then. SOOOO SIMPLY PUT - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY BACK IN 'BIBLICAL' TIMES, TO LIVE TO BE THAT OLD!

Answer 3

It is a popular misconception that people lived longer because they do not take into account that in Biblical times there was no concept of Years, time was measured with Lunar Cycles.
The Bible say's that Noah lived 900 years, but if you convert it using the number of Lunar Cycles in a year he was closer to 70 years old and not 900.

There are those who believe the Bible is always 100% correct, but they fail to realize that the original Bible was written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek, then Translated into Latin, then Spanish before ever being translated into English and there are several different English versions.
So the old saying "Something was lost in translation" is very apt here.

Answer 4

There were several useful answers here. I hope this is another.

#1: genetics

Some claim that, genetically, our life span has been reduced over time. Consider the resveratrol discovery - scientists have shown that animals (rats and lower animal species) will live literally twice as long if they are fed a "starvation" diet. A shortage of food "turns on" the gene producing resveratrol. Taking resveratrol orally extends the lives of these animals by 40%. The interesting thing about this study was that the animals actually aged more slowly, rather then merely living longer. PBS had a special on this in Nova, and the scientist recommended that adult men, to engender the same effect, eat no more than 1500 calories a day. (I have been following this since seeing the show).

The PBS show also discussed a study done on healthy American centenarians. The study discovered that these people tended to have *two* genetic differences with the rest of the population. First was a duplicate resveratrol-producing gene. Second was unusually large cholesterol molecules - also detected as a genetic anomaly.

If aging is genetic, at least in part, as these studies have determined, isn't it possible that in ancient times a number of genes allowing for a lengthy life (slowed aging) were present and active in humans in a way that has since become unusual? In a sense (because this is not actually evolution), couldn't we have devolved? Indeed, it is not necessarily true that a longer life is more conducive to species survival, and so a shorter life (recently extended by medicine, not genetics) may actually be the result of natural selection in the human species (if you believe in that).

#2: linguistics

This is my favorite explanation, and comes simply from the meaning of the bible itself. In Hebrew, the word used for "son of" is equally-well translated as "descendant of". Likewise, "father of" as "ancestor of". "Fathered" can also be translated properly as "was an ancestor in the male line of". A good example in the bible itself - Jesus was called the son of David. This title not only has prophetic and capability implications, but genetic ones as well, and great pains were taken in the gospels to show that Jesus was, *biologically*, a "son" (descendant) of David through the male line.

We can make use of this fact when reading the Old Testament. In Gen 5:3 Adam "fathered" Seth when he was 130. This may be true - or it may mean (literally, not symbolically) that the "house" or "male line" of Adam fathered Seth after 130 years. "Adam lived for eight hundred years after the birth of Seth". This could mean, literally, that the "house" or "male line" of Adam retained authority 800 years afterwards before moving to the line of Seth. The same "translation" can be applied to the other descendants of Adam.

The problem with this? Jacob complains of living a far shorter life than his ancestors (Gen 47:9). Jacob live to be 147 (Gen 48:28). This is not at all beyond the realm of reason. His father Isaac lived to be 180 (Gen 35:28), and *his* father Abraham lived to be 175 (Gen 25:7). This explains Jacob's statement, and also gives us a ballpark for determining the longevity of people in this "line". If we suppose that this relatively long age (180) is possible (which it certainly is), and we also suppose that it was not unusual for the people of this line to live to the age of 150 - 200 years (barring untimely death), then there is really very little contradictory even to generally-accepted science *theory*.

Further: I believe not only that it is possible that generations were skipped in the Genesis accounts, but also that generations unmentioned may have been skipped. Consider, again, the Matthew genealogy of Jesus. We see quite obviously, when compared to the accounts of the Old Testament, that Matthew simply ignores several generations. Does that make the genealogy found here incorrect? Not at all. It is wholly accurate. It is simply not all-inclusive. The same may be true of genealogies in the Old Testament. Thus, for example, when scripture claims that Seth fathered Enosh (Gen 5:6), this could very easily mean, in a literal (not symbolic) sense, that a *descendant* of Seth (in the male line) fathered an *ancestor* of Enosh (in the male line). If we suppose (not without merit) that this is the *line* of Seth fathering the *line* of Enosh, there may well be unmentioned centuries between the *life* of Seth (first in the line) and the life of Enosh (first, perhaps, to assume some sort of power in *that* line). The accounts in the Old Testament do not affirm that the genealogies are all-inclusive, and only a (necessarily) strict translation has led some to believe that Adam was created about 6,000 years ago.

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

Answer 5

If you're looking for science, then the Bible is wrong. People did not live hundreds of years. The only source saying people lived that long was Moses. There are no corroborating independent sources for such longevity.

Answer 6

Metaphysically speaking. It is believed by some. That the reference is to life everlasting. At that we live on after the death of this body. If science is where you are to look I would look at quantum physics. Theorists believe that there is several planes of existence. And that the energy we posses as our spirit will live in this body until the body dies and then our spirit returns to a different plane. Some call it Heaven. From that location we review our lives and determine through the judgment of our peers and our guides whether we learned all that we were supposed to in the recently past life. Then we start planning another life in another body and plan out what lessons we will learn and what lessons we will teach. It in my mind is all related. The teachings of the bible. In fact the teachings of most religions and that of Science all can be blended together. Think of Earth as your school. Here is where we are to learn to be more Christ like, more loving, more generous. It is my belief that this is the way we can evolve over many lifetimes to become more like Christ. He tried to tell us this. As have other profits. There is life everlasting. All sides will agree to that. (except atheists)

For the record, as I'm sure I will be hated by some for this, I am a Christian. And I believe God is pure love. Not Fire and brimstone. I am also Agnostic. I believe in spirituality and not corrupt religion. Scientifically, I believe in multiple levels of energy and existence. I believe you have and will live for thousands of years in many bodies, with many challenges in your quest to be perfect so that you can one day sit at the right hand of God

Answer 7

Your basic assumption that the bible is correct is wrong. This is called a priori logic where you "assume" something is accurate for which there is no real evidence.

And, don't you think that if people lived that long, there would be something about it in Egyptian hieroglyphics? And, in Chinese history? Both of which predated the writing of the bible.

If you are really just looking for science, you need to put the bible aside as just one book written by people who thought the earth was the center of the universe and then was later edited to fit the beliefs and wishes of religious leaders.

Answer 8

There's a theory that, before the flood, the earth had much higher levels of oxygen. This allowed for the growth of "giant" creatures and plants, and the incredibly long life of people in biblical times. Also, that disease was only introduced after the flood.

"There were Giants on the earth in those days" (Genesis 6:4)

Answer 9

Well. In the earlier days there were probably fewer species of bacterium and/or viruses (if there were viruses). In addition, they were poorly evolved. Because of this, humans would have easily defended against the few diseases that were out there. There were herbs and stuff that would combat anything the human body couldn't handle. The body would have to put less energy into combating disease and there would be less wear and tear of the body.

People eat a healthy diet of meat and wild vegetables. They didn't have all this extra fat and stuff. They probably had few sugary foods. As I know that asian cultures don't use too much sugar. So their bodies were healthy.

In earlier days, I see the world as being fairly leisurely. People didn't have to go to work. They didn't exercise excessively. They didn't need to try to work of any unhealthy materials in their body. This all saves energy and lets them live longer.

Answer 10

YOU SAID IT , i think the technology we have now is the reason why humans cant live that long , now humans are more dependent on tech. and they r becoming lazy , plus we now have more diseases than b4 and the way we live our lives is too complicated and nowadays there too many psychological problems that i dont think it can be found when human were able to live a nice simple life without stress for hundreds of years .......