If one doesn’t hold the bible to be infallible, I’m assuming most of the stories contained within are seen as morals to dictate behavior. Under that guise, I’m wondering what the purpose was of having characters that supposedly lived to be several plus hundred years old. Like Methusala and such.
As this may have no factual answer, putting it in GQ might not have been the correct choice, but I really didn’t think anywhere else was even close to appropriate.
Regardless of whether or not a move of the thread is necessary, does anyone have any opinions on this? I’d love to hear whatever theories might be out there.
To showcase their importance. The reading guide in my bible (It’s The Catholic Study Bible College Edition, NAB, for those of you keeping track at home.) compares them to lists of the ages of ancient Sumerian kings who all apparently lived several hundred millenia. It’s a way for the writers to say, “These guys were really important and special!” and also helps link these events that occurred in an amorphous long time ago way back when dealie to a specific time period. Whether the events actually occurred on those dates, if they occurred at all, is another matter entirely.
Nobody really knows. If you’re unwilling to accept the claims of literalists, you have to be comfortable with not knowing some things, I’m afraid.
One possibility is that it was a translation error, or that it was something like Plato’s figures on Atlantis. I’ve tried months for years, and that doesn’t work, but if it was a mistake in translating numbers from hieroglyphics into ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/whatever, that’s at least plausible.*
This is just one of those questions that seriously believing Christians who are not “young Earthers” don’t have an answer for. Sorry.
*What language did you think Moses wrote in? He was an educated man, but it was an Egyptian education. And the alphabet for the Israelites’ language wasn’t devised yet, according to those who study the development of written languages in the Middle East. Or at least that’s what they were saying back when I used to subscribe to Biblical Archaeological Review.
Ah, thank you both. I’m a former fundamentalist, so knowing about what people think who aren’t literalists is new for me. I’ve only recently (say like within the last 5 years or so) begun to work out what the intent was behind the stories of the bible beyond the obvious, so questions come up that I’ve never even thought of and don’t know who to ask.
Another possibility is that dynastic lines get conflated into an individual, so that Methuselah is not one person, but a dynastic line that lasted for nearly a thousand years. Or that the numbers have significance in the numerology of the time, but I doubt that we will ever get to understand what that significance is.
YMMV.
For my personal perspective, that part of Genesis just serves to illustrate God’s provision for the worlds ongoing development, but not much more.
The Bible (by which I mean the OT) may have contained morality tales, but it was also a law book, a cultural compendium and most importantly, anational epic. It was designed to tell the story of the Jews’ history in narrative form, and as such, is similar to other epics like the Iliad, Aeneid, the Kalevala and the King Arthur stories.
One element of all these stories is that people in the past were wiser/braver/tougher/more long lived then those living in our current degenerate age; or, alternately, that we’re awesome because we’re descended from great heroes. Hence, the ages.
As with many tales of origin, exaggeration creeps in for almost every element of Biblical stories.
The tale grows in the telling. Details get floofed more and more. Greater escapades; bigger armies; badder enemies; more serious plagues–doesn’t matter.
When age is, by itself, venerated, it’s a detail worth exaggerating because the person grows in stature simply by being older. Once a few key players become pretty elderly, it’s a simple extension to make more peripheral ones also have a similar age.
Plus, you will notice that in general, the ages decline as it gets further and further from the Creation. It sorts of implies the accumulative nature of sin - as one gets further from Adam, things go downhill.
Particularly virtuous types like Noah jump back up, even after the limit God sets in Genesis 6:3. Abraham lives 175 years, but Moses “only” 120.
My very favorite college history prof had a rule of thumb for such matters. He suggested we divide any numbers in the Bible by either four, or when necessary, ten.
He used the Jew’s wandering through the desert as an example. With the presumed shorter lifespans of the time, the concept of a people wandering around with limited food and water for forty years was preposterous. An entire generation would have died off and the next taken its place during such a time-span. Four to ten years is a much more reasonable time span - long enough to have been in the desert for a really long time, but not so long that the people forget why they’re there.
Right…that’s the idea behind the story. The Jews escape from Egypt, get to the borders of Canaan, send in spies who report the Canaanites are numerous and scary, they get scared, and then God gets pissed at them for doubting that he’ll give them victory, and says “You’re a wicked generation, none of you will be allowed into Canaan, so go wander around in the desert for 40 years until all you doubters die off, and I’ll try again with your kids.”
But the historian’s point was that multiple generations continuing to wander was impractical, just as is the concept of living 175 years. His suggestion was that the youger generation would have been ticked off and found somewhere to settle in the meantime if you take the 40 years as literal.
[minor hijack]
I really enjoyed his history classes. They were sensible and interesting. He also did us the favor of warning us that not only was the movie *Caligula *bad history, it was bad pornography.
[/minor hijack]
So let me get this straight. One is allowed to interpret the bible as one sees fit?
It seems to me that allowing interpretation of the bible would be the original slippery slope. Where does one stop? If the bible is not the absolute true word of god and is instead a selectively chosen assembly of various translations of works originally written by mere mortals who were themselves decades removed from the events of which they wrote, why bother using it as a basis for entire religions?
I say either you believe the as it is written – believe that the original writers were divinely inspired to write the exact words of god and that all translations heretofore are similarly guided – or believe none of it.
Or you could say that the actual “true” ages of persons who lived before the advent of the modern calendar are minor details of little importance in the grand scheme of things.
But then, I’m a bad Catholic. I’m accustomed to ignoring religious bits I find fault with. I’ve come to terms with that.
It is in our best interest to study all ancient writings and from them try and glean as much historical data as we can.
It assuredly is more productive to approach the bible in a scientific way and not assume it is correct and work form there, at least in order to work towards the above mentioned goal.
Point of fact, we have managed to pin point events depicted in the bible which have almost certainly occurred. We can do so by coraborating information in the bible with physical archeological and anthropological evidence as well as other historical writings. We have also managed to show that a lot of the events did not occur as depicted int he bible (if at all).
One need not have to be a believer to understand that even in mythology there could lie kernels of truth.
Well in my case, seeing as I’m not a Christian, I don’t feel honor bound to do see it any particular way but as I feel fits with my conscience. I am an agnostic though and do believe there’s a possibility that it’s divinely inspired. However, whether it is or isn’t is irrelevant. That still put it (for me) into the firmly not literal camp due to the fallibility of the earthly writers.
So, Moses did not live to be 120 years old in my humble opinion and I wanted to find out others’ reasoning for that.
To everyone else, thank you all for your answers. It’s given me food for thought and the explanations that have been offered make a lot of sense, especially in regards to stature.
There has not now or ever been a single Christian group who has not interpreted the Bible to suit their purpose. Where do you think the thousands of sects come from?
Take a basic example. Some groups link together several things in the Book of Revelation to conjecture a rapture. Some don’t. Which interpretation is correct? An answer along the lines of “Mine is, theirs is wrong.” is hardly convincing.
The nature of the origins of the Bible and how to use it also comes in a thousand different flavors. Which is right? Again, flat out assertions hardly carry the day.
Take Martin Luther’s translation vs. the Vulgate. Who get’s to decide which version is a divinely guided translation? Do you really want to fight the Hundred’s Year War all over?
In short, your personal take on the Bible is just your personal take. Other people have different views. Asserting you are correct is not a persuasive argument. Understand that your view is an interpretation whether you want to believe it or not.
If you are a true believer then none of god’s words are minor.
This is true. One could look at the bible as history written by fallible humans and therefore not something to base a religion on, thereby avoiding a number of wars and presecutions over the last few thousand years. Good idea. I hope it catches on.
So it’s starting to sound like to me that the bible may not be the true word of god, but instead a unrelated bunch of incoherent scribbles from dubious sources.
Yeah, because you’d think if god actually wanted us to plan for his return he’d have spelled out the procedure a little more clearly.
Here again, if the god is the creator of man then s/he should know better how to communicate unambiguously to us via a written work. Maybe s/he is not as omnipotent as we have been lead to believe.
If the bible is the true word of god then all translations must also be the true word of god. Unless of course some fakes were introduced along the way. How are we supposed to tell which is which now?
That is just it, how are we supposed to have one big happy opiate of the masses if everyone is allowed their own personal take? Either you take it as the word of god or not.