a theory on really old antediluvians

[MatCauthon]

Some of you are assuming that I believe in YHWH, that I am emotionally involved in this, etc. I merely offered an explanation as to how people might have got the idea that people used to live for hundreds of years. I do not seem to understand how someone can shut down this idea without giving it an ounce of credibility, nor offering an alternative explanation, and at the same time insinuate that I am an idiot for critically thinking. A major flood was reported in many cultures long ago, so the idea that it actually happened is not farfetched. It is probably the most believable thing that happened in the bible, without the details. That a lot of knowledge was lost or corrupted after that is equally believable.

I don't pretend to have all the answers - I don't even know the question much of the time. It is just a pet theory that makes more sense than anything else.

[Graybeard]

On top of that, you think that God is unable to express himself properly.

YHWH isn't quoted in Gen 5. Also, if he put a limit on people's lives, why did they live longer than that? Are you assuming that everything in the bible should be taken at face value? No errors? All the supernatural stuff is true? Because that's how you come off, like the contradictions make sense in your mind. This is all very confusing to me.

If I don't take everything at face value, what are the lies and what is the truth - who knows? You? Did Jesus rise from the dead? If not even the Bible says religion is a sham.

I find your idea to be wrong, simply for the reason I mentioned - God says man's maximum time on earth is 120 years - if you were correct, he would mean 10 years - the same word is used for both. There is absolutely no reason to think that God quotes ages in one form, and then in another.#

Further you are confusing "many moons" with what Hollywood had Native Americans say - unlikely.

I did point out that Christians are prone to lie about what they read in the Bible to show that it is not a ludicrous set of unsupported folk tales with little or nothing that we can learn today. The Bible is a collection from henotheistic times, other cultures and wild inventions, interspersed with a little exaggerated history.

[jetson]

There is a similar problem with old earth and young earth believers.  Specifically, there is a group arguing that "days" in Genesis is really not literal 24 hour days.  Given what we know about the true age of the earth, we know the YEC's are incredibly wrong.  But that does not mean that the wrier(s) of Genesis had any real clue about anything, and thus invented the crazy idea that some god created everything in 6 actual days.

So, there is the ongoing argument over what a "day" is in Genesis.  As though it matters at all anymore.

[SHIN KAIRI]

On the basis that since everything is deteriorating then it must have been better before...

What specifically is deteriorating?

The whole earth is. The whole eco-system. Everything that is not close enough to YahuShua eventually deteriorates.

You never answered me about the units for entropy. 

I'm sorry my friend, but I'm afraid I do not know what that is. Perhaps you should talk to a christian scientist. I am not one. There are plenty out there who will give you a run for your money. Good luck.

[screwtape]

What specifically is deteriorating?

The whole earth is. The whole eco-system.

I do not understand.  In what way is the earth or the ecosystem deteriorating?

Everything that is not close enough to YahuShua eventually deteriorates.

That is a claim that needs substantiation.  How do you know this is true?  How would you prove it is false?  If your claim is the earth is deteriorating because it isn't close enough to jesus, well, I have a hard time with that.  It raises more questions than it answers.  How does the earth get close to jesus?  How close is close enough?  What is the mechanism by which things near jesus are preserved? 

I think the simpler answer is the ecosystem is not doing as well because of all the crap people have been doing to it.  No supernatural explanation needed.

You never answered me about the units for entropy. 

I'm sorry my friend, but I'm afraid I do not know what that is. Perhaps you should talk to a christian scientist. I am not one. There are plenty out there who will give you a run for your money. Good luck.

You miss my point.  You are talking about entropy and the second law as if you knew what you were talking about.  However, you do not actually know what you are talking about.  So the wise thing to do would be to either learn something about thermodynamics or to ask about it, rather than talk about it as if you knew anything. 

[SHIN KAIRI]

I think the simpler answer is the ecosystem is not doing as well because of all the crap people have been doing to it.

Also true.

You never answered me about the units for entropy. 

I'm sorry my friend, but I'm afraid I do not know what that is. Perhaps you should talk to a christian scientist. I am not one. There are plenty out there who will give you a run for your money. Good luck.

You miss my point.  You are talking about entropy and the second law as if you knew what you were talking about.  However, you do not actually know what you are talking about.  So the wise thing to do would be to either learn something about thermodynamics or to ask about it, rather than talk about it as if you knew anything.

Well, I'll think about that...

[Samothec]

It was a fun little theory you had, I grant you - but all the evidence seems stacked against it.  Have you asked yourself why you are so empotionally vested in it?

I'm not that invested in it. I'm invested in trying to get others to think logically.

Except you seem pretty sure that it means either "month" or "year" depending on the point you want to prove.  Who is to say that it didn't mean weeks, or paypackets, or number of camels patted?

You argument seems to be "787 years makes no sense, therefore it MUST have meant months in that line, but years in the lines before and after - no other argument makes sense".

These are misstatements of what I said. I will assume it was done in error rather than deliberately.

I already pointed out this started as an oral history. I pointed out words shift in meaning. I didn't point out (but thought long time members here would remember) that the Bible and Genesis in particular were cobbled together from multiple sources. Given these facts, which answer does Occam's Razor support: the idea that 969 years was originally 969 moons OR that Genesis was totally fiction? I am not saying that must be the answer; I'm saying it is a likely answer.

[Azdgari]

False dichotomy.  How about that Genesis is not entirely factual, containing exaggerations here and there when describing humans?

I mean, we could apply this principle of yours elsewhere, too.  The writers of the NT didn't really mean that Jesus rose from the dead, that would be crazy talk.  They must have meant something else that got mis-translated into rising from the dead.  Etc.

[Add Homonym]

The Jewish position on this, is that the long life of ancient people in the OT were the product of living a near-sinless life.

Since old Hebrew Judaism has no afterlife, the personal reward for following God's law, was life extension.

[1] Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:
[2] That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.

The book of Job states fairly clearly (in a circular and confused way), that the product of displeasing God, is personal pestilence. Although it's not terribly clear what Job did, to piss off God, because it's circular, all his friends come to him and tell him that he must have done something, because bad things don't happen to good people. Job 21 states Job's sudden observation that wicked people all seem to do pretty well, and it must be God giving them fringe benefits.

Matt 9 also equates sin with disease

[2] And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
[3] And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
[4] And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
[5] For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

The Pharisee Hillel, who was regarded as great, was reputed to have lived for 100 years.

Therefore it's compulsory for the Hebrew texts to have mythical people in them, who lived a long time. This way, priests can say that everybody contemporary is a sinner, and they all have to try much harder, and give more money to the temple, if they want to live as long as Noah, or Job. However, there is an exceedingly poor correlation with righteousness and longevity. To cope with this problem, they then had to invent other reasons why people were getting sick, such as God testing people. It didn't work very well.

[Samothec]

I mean, we could apply this principle of yours elsewhere, too.  The writers of the NT didn't really mean that Jesus rose from the dead, that would be crazy talk.  They must have meant something else that got mis-translated into rising from the dead.  Etc.

"My" principle is to see if there is a reasonable explanation for the events described. Which is why this thread has me very puzzled - did several of the atheists here get religion during the break?

Might the guard who decared Jesus dead have done so even though he could see that he wasn't completely dead yet? In other words, took pity on him? So when Jesus got up on his own later it seemed as if he "rose from the dead".

Yes, I'm strange and don't see things the way others do but that doesn't mean I'm wrong and that you should not try thinking about what I've actually said.

Well, this dead horse is now mushy hamburger. But you continue if you want.

[Azdgari]

The exercise just strikes me, in your original case, as a shoddy attempt to salvage a book to which you hold an emotinal attachment due to the culture in which you were raised.  Several others have made interpreted your support for the idea similarly.  And this is because we see that sort of thing all the time from religionists who reject an absolutely literal interpretation of scripture.

Fact is, we could look at all myths in the way you describe.  This deprives us of an opportunity to understand the culture that produced the myths, instead projecting our own way of looking at literature - that of a fact-based literal account - backward onto a time when that wasn't necessarily the purpose of the myth.