If the long lifespans in the Bible aren't literal, what do they mean?

Great Debates
1

Firstly, some long lifespans in the Bible:

It seems to me that the characters in Genesis are supposed to be historical because they are included in Luke 3’s genealogy:
http://www.bibletime.com/bt/theory/history/adam/

It is common for Christians to say that early Genesis is just filled with metaphors and poetry. But what about the long ages I have listed? They don’t seem very poetic, and if they are metaphorical, what is the true meaning being the metaphor? Also, in Genesis it even says at what age the father gave birth to the next person. This allowed Jewish scholars, Bishop Ussher, and Answers in Genesis [see The Date of Noah’s Flood] to date the Creation of the earth… it seems odd that God would put in fake figures in there so that people could come up with the wrong date for creation… on the other hand, if the age at fatherhood was shorter, Jesus’s ancestors, Adam and Noah, (according to Luke 3) would have lived a lot more recently…

2

Some say that the “years” should be read as months. Doing so brings the lifespans more in line with reality (but it’s still a bit of a stretch once you get much past a 1000 months).

Another (and I think more likely) explanation is that the lifespans of the patriarchs are patterned after Sumerian kings list which claimed even more ridiculously long lives for the kings (28,000 years for one. 36,000 years for another, etc).

The really striking thing about the kings list is that there is a great flood in the middle of the history and that the kings who rule after the flood have more or less normal lifespans. This pretty much parallels Genesis and is not really surprisong since Genesis takes quite a bit from Mesopotamian mythology.

3

I always interpreted it to mean that in the earliest days, when God took a more active interest in the day-to-day lives of people, they lived prodigious lifespans and as he gradually phased out his personal interaction, lifespans shortened.

4

Well I left out the verses that talked about the age at fatherhood… the age at fatherhood ranges from 500 years (Noah) to 29 years (Nahor). In months that is 46.6 years to 2.4 years.

Yeah, that could be an explanation assuming that this is a story rather than the inspired word of an omnipotent omniscient God.
In Numbers and Deuteronomy I thought the author would try and be more historical. I mean Numbers is filled with lots of realistic sounding numbers…

I can understand that ages might be inflated to emphasize how important people were…

But for some reason King David, a descendent of Jesus, lived to be only 70:
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/david.html

While Jehoiada, who lived at the same time as David,
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/jehoiada.html
lived to be 130 (2 Chronicles 24:15), surpassing Aaron, Joseph, and even Moses. Jehoiada was a high priest though.

5

I think your difficulty may be caused by the fact that you overlook the possiblity that it could be both. Or, at any rate, the possiblity that believers might consider it to be both.

What makes you think that Luke’s genealogy is intended to be historical?

6

The source of the long ages seems to be Sumerian myth, where there is the same trend, only these are kings and they live far longer (cite, king list.)

7

Can it simply a metephorical way of saying “these dudes were REALLY OLD!”, when they simply lived to be the upper reasonable limit of their time?

8

One aspect that may or may not have a part in this schema, whatever the explanation may be, is that you will recall that modern critical theory traces four or more strands of authorship/tradition in the Torah: the Jahvist source (Judea), the Elohist source (Ephraim), the Deuteronomist source, and the Priestly source. Of these, the first two are strong storytellers, the Jahvist being the storyteller par excellence and the Elohist more inclined to seek “natural” explanations of supposedly-miraculous events (like the parting of the Red Sea). The Jahvist is the guy who reports the Judah and Caleb stories, the Elohist the Joseph and Joshua stories. The Deuteronomist is largely responsible for the book with that name, and contributes very little if anything to the preceding books.

However, the Priestly writer, or the redactors who merged the four strands together, seems to have had a set of preoccupations: it was he who produced the first creation story, the Genesis 1:1-2:4 story (the Jahvist doing most of the Adam-and-Eve story that follows), the specialty material in Exodus-Numbers where God gets into excruciating detail about liturgy and ceremonial practice, and in particular the genealogies that are used to tie all the stories together. The repeated “These are the generations of…” accounts are from the Priestly source.

There are a number of explanations, ranging from tradition to made-up-of-whole-cloth, for the dates and ages in those genealogies, but their function in Genesis as we have it seems to be to link together the Adam-and-Eve, Cain-and-Abel, Noah, and Abraham/Isaac/Jacob/Twelve Patriarchs sets of stories, along with the interrelationships of the Israelites with the neighboring tribes and their eponymous ancestries.

I know that’s not exactly on point for the main question of this thread, but setting the context in which they first appeared seemed to me to be a useful bit of background in addressing that question.

9

In Gen 5, Adam is not a singular male individual (a common misconception) — Adam is a group of people:

5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Adam “begat a son in his own likeness, after his image” (5:3) — that means that Seth is not a singular male individual. If you will spend some time with the majority of names in Genesis, etymologically (way back), you will fined they can be (and were) read in a “plural” sense — I choose the plural because it opens a way of explanation that is logical.

Back in those days, it was kinda like the hills of Missouri. The topography had a lot of “hollars” or small valleys where one group would have an offshoot or family go over the hill to another small (or larger) valley until they grew out ot it, and so on. They were spoken of or referred to as the “leader” of the group. E.g., the “house of David” was spoken of as David.

I know you are going to have a difficult time with what I am saying, however, I will continue to explain if you choose.

ICor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

We who believe are the body of Christ. The term “man” is mankind or a group. Adam = Mankind. In the Bible there is a difference between the words “man” and “male” and “woman” and “female”.

Here is the kicker — “Eve” (Chavvah) means and is equal to “life” or “living” — the first woman, wife of Adam. Eve is the “life” of Adam who is mankind.

10

We had this discussion not too long ago:

Bible Questions: What’s up with the OLD guys?

Zev Steinhardt

11

If it was both that means that God read the writings about Sumerian kings and decided to copy that idea except that he wanted to make the ages a bit more realistic… :dubious:

Well the genealogy of Jesus begins half-way into Luke 3 after it talks about something in Jesus’s life story - his baptism.
Verse 23 says:
“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, [i.e. his real father was God] of Joseph, the son of Heli,”
then verses 24 to 38 complete the genealogy.
It would be unusual if that genealogy wasn’t supposed to be historical because it begins halfway through a verse that talks about Jesus’s age and who his father was.
BTW, Matthew 1 also has a genealogy… it begins: “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ…”
Remember that many, many thousands of copies of the Bible have been hand copied in the past… if those supposed ancestors of Jesus are just lies of God it would mean God is unnecessarily wasting the time of those scholars. Matthew 1 appears to have a less historic looking structure - i.e. the pattern explained in Matthew 1:17 makes it seem like the genealogy was partly invented. (And also it doesn’t completely match up with the genealogy in Luke 3 - but the point of this thread was about the long lifespans)

12

BTW, here’s an interesting verse that should be in the original post:
Genesis 6:3
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be 120 years.”

This is said during the time of Noah, but notice that even after the flood some lived to be 400 years old!

I suppose… though that doesn’t explain the old ages that the people were at fatherhood… e.g. in Genesis 11:10 it says that Noah was 500 when he became the father of Shem, but in the next few verses, the fathers have sons at the age of about 30. (In Genesis 5 the age of fatherhood is also high)

13

In the days before the flood, the Earth revolved around the sun much faster, resulting in your number of years counting up fairly fast.

To bring about the flood, God placed a gigantic, 3-D puddle across the Earth’s path in space.

Just like when your car slows down when you hit a really big puddle, the Earth’s velocity was greatly reduced, resulting in a much longer year. Thus, when your normal, biological lifespan ended, you had counted fewer years than prior to the flood.

14

(BTW, it’s weird that the ages are supposedly exaggerated, yet in Genesis and Exodus, the time taken to create things in the heavens and on the earth was highly understated…)

Polycarp:

What do you mean though? Are you saying the lifespans and age at fatherhoods were just inserted in for some reason by people who weren’t under the direct influence of God…?

I don’t see why the lifespans/age at fatherhood are necessary to link together the characters in Genesis… I thought a style like in Matthew 1 would be good enough… they could even have about 3 generations per verse rather than 1 generation per 2-3 verses…

I thought an omnipotent omniscient God would be able to make sure his Truth gets into the Bible uncompromised though…
BTW, do you think the same strand is responsible for the verses I quoted, including 2 Chronicles 24:15? Also, in 2 Chronicles 24:15, the age of the lifespan of the high priest was probably common knowledge. Say you believe that his maximum age might be 90 years… why would the author of 2 Chronicles not accurately report that age? Is there any other exaggeration of ages besides those I mentioned? e.g. in other verses, or outside of the Torah?

15

Sometimes we track to a place where there is no conclusion. It seems that way here. Ya’ll have not come to a conclusive stance. Maybe you should read mine and comment on it – it is true according to the Bible.

Eve is the “life” of Adam who is man — not a male. Adam is spoken of as man — male and female.

In Christ there is no male or female. The believers are the body of Christ.

The first Adam (man) is of the earth — earthy. The second Adam (man) is the Lord from heaven.

It is clear — they were old because they were not singular male indivuals — they were man. Man is a group — male and female.

Eve is the “life” of Adam who falls and causes Adam to fall (lusts of the flesh) and then repents and becomes and is the bride of Christ, he who will live forever.

You cannot disprove what I am saying. Your trackings are leading you to places where there is no conclusion – places where there is no proof — surmisings and false premises.

In the Bible the beginning and the ending must be the same. The life of Adam was perfect — the life fell because of the lusts of the flesh. The believer is born again through the belief in Christ and repentance which is an act of faith. All of this is by the grace of God according to the Bible, the very words (who are the spirit) of God.

16

Right now the Christian community requires an historical paradigm for the bible — paradigms change. Not to long ago the world required a Newtonian paradigm and now and Einstienian paradigm and soon to be quantum. We used to believe that gravity is a pulling force and we are changing to gravity being a givine or pushing force.

The true Biblical paradigm is one of eternity — a place where all may live forever. I believe it and am going there — the kingdom (a place of perfection for man) is coming whether I believe it or not. I believe it because I can see it — man in a place of perfection — a place of forever thanks to the teachings of Jesus.

Wow!

17

No, not necessarily. It means that, under the inspiration of God, the human author of this particular part of Genesis drew on existing stories, or elements of existing stories, because for the audience he was addressing they illustrated or imported something true and important about the relationship between God and man.

18

Why do the stories in the bible, about ages, and the rest have to be metaphorical? Is there any reason to assume they weren’t written down as true accounts? I’m not saying that there was actually somebody named Noah who lived to be 950, and survived a flood that killed everybody else, but the people who wrote down the Book of Genesis might still have believed there was. So instead of saying, “The book of Genesis means they were really old” or “It’s talking about groups of people”, why not assume that the author was telling the truth as he understood it?

19

I don’t think they have to be metaphorical, or that they have to be understood metaphorically. I just assert that a belief that the bible is divinely inspired is not inconsistent with a belief that they are metaphorical, or that they are to be understood metaphorically.

20

lightwait:
In this thread I was asking what all those numbers I quoted in the original thread mean exactly… (as well as the exact purpose of the high age at fatherhood ages)

UDS:
What do all of those detailed ages (and age at fatherhood) say about the relationship between God and man? I mean Methuselah had the highest age of all yet nothing is said about his life, same with Jared (I think), who had the second-highest age. The third-highest age was that of Noah… even though Noah was a “righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God” (Genesis 6:9).

If they are metaphors, then what is the actual meaning of all of the ages, and age at fatherhoods?
And why did God make a metaphor in such a long-winded way in a time when manuscripts had to be hand-copied?
I think Jesus saying things link “I am the bread of life” and “I am the vine, you are the branches” are metaphors. (more related metaphors) I’ll try and change those metaphors into long-winded ones which add a lot seemingly pointless detail: (similar to the mostly long ages at fatherhood)
“I am the bread of life and I was baked in an oven for 4 and a half hours. I was made out of three and a half hand-fulls of flour which came from the local markets and two cups of water”, etc.
or if the Creation week is just a metaphor (or poetry) used to justify the 7 day working week, a modifed version could be:
“This was the fifth day of Creation. 3:05am: God made dolphins. 4:32am: God made sharks. 6:35am: God made jellyfish… 4:31pm: God made hummingbirds and parrots. 7:03pm: God made penguins.” (an ancient time system would be used instead though)
I mean in Genesis it already talks about morning and evening and “days”, this just expands on this idea. I know the numbers there are ugly and non-poetic, but so are the numbers involved in the long ages.